Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE K. BABU, J
Abi Abraham – Appellant
Versus
Kanhangad Rubber Ltd. – Respondent
The legal document pertains to a criminal revision case concerning the dishonor of cheques issued in discharge of a debt, under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifically Section 138. The court's key findings and legal principles are as follows:
The court reaffirmed that once the execution of a cheque is established, there is a presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. This presumption shifts the evidential burden to the accused to rebut it (!) .
The complainant, a company, successfully proved that the person representing it was duly authorized to do so, satisfying the requirements of law for filing a complaint under Section 138. The company's Articles of Association and a prior Board resolution supported this authorization (!) (!) .
The evidence presented, including the execution of the cheques, the agreement, ledger extracts, and notices issued, established the liability of the accused. The accused did not dispute the signatures or the execution of the cheques but claimed that there was no legally enforceable debt (!) (!) .
The court held that the accused failed to discharge the evidential burden to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt. The evidence on record did not support the claim that the cheques were not issued in respect of any liability (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the standard of proof required for rebutting the presumption is akin to preponderance of probabilities, and the accused must provide probable defenses, which they failed to do in this case (!) (!) .
The findings of the lower courts, which concluded that the execution of the cheques and the liability of the accused were established, were upheld. The revisional court found no patent error or unreasonable view in these judgments (!) (!) .
Overall, the revision petitions were dismissed, affirming the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the established facts and evidence (!) .
In summary, the court reiterated that once the execution of the cheque is proven, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption of liability. Since the accused failed to do so, the original judgments confirming the conviction were maintained.
ORDER :
As the subject matter and the parties in these Criminal Revision Petitions are the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The common revision petitioner in these revision petitions is the accused in C.C.Nos.20, 42 & 72 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Hosdurg. The common respondent No.1 - Kanhangad Rubber Ltd., a public limited company, is the complainant.
3. The complainant - Kanhangad Rubber Ltd. filed three complaints against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Hosdurg.
4. The common pleadings in the complaints are as follows:-
The complainant is a public limited company established under the Companies Act, 1956. The company is represented by its Managing Director. The Articles of Association of the complainant company authorize and empower the Managing Director to represent the company in all legal matters. The Board of Directors of the company held on 12.08.2016 empowered the Managing Director of the company to initiate legal proceedings against the accused.
5. The accused is the proprietor of M/s.A & J Rubbers,
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once execution of a cheque is established, it is presumed to have been issued in discharge of a debt unless rebutted ....
A complainant must prove the execution of a cheque by direct knowledge or witness testimony; reliance solely on records fails to establish the burden of proof.
The courts affirmed that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the initial presumption of liability must be rebutted by the accused with satisfactory evidence, which was not done in th....
In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut presumption of debt with evidence, rejecting unsupported secu....
Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is contingent upon the company committing the offense; rebuttable presumption of debt exists unless proven otherwise, requiring preponderance ....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interfer....
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates that issued cheques are presumed to be for legally enforceable debts, which the accused must rebut with evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
