Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE K. BABU, J
ABDUTTY.T.V S/o MUHAMMEDUNNY – Appellant
Versus
M.V ABDUL KADER, S/o MOIDUNNY HAJI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. BABU, J.)
The judgment acquitting the accused in S.T.No.2356 of 2015 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant is the complainant. The accused is respondent No.1.
2. The complainant filed the complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pleading that the accused executed Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.50,000/- in favour of him. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. The cheque was returned for the reason “account closed”. A lawyer’s notice was caused to be issued to the accused. He received the notice but refused to return the amount covered by the cheque. He also did not respond by way of a reply to the statutory notice.
3. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. The accused appeared. The trial Court proceeded with the trial. The complainant gave evidence as PW1. On the side of the complainant Exts.P1 to P5 were marked.
4. The trial Court held that the complainant failed to prove the execution of Ext.P1 cheque and acquitted the accused.
5. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant and the accused are know
The presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove the non-existence of a debt, which was not established in this case.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption of debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption of the existence of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by inconsistencies in the complainant's claims, leading to acquittal of the accused.
The court upheld that a dishonored cheque creates a presumption of liability unless adequately rebutted, reinforcing the legal principles under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through a preponderance of probabilities, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the....
The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, leading to acquittal if the complainant fails to prove a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise, particularly regarding the service of demand notice.
A signed cheque establishes a presumption of liability; the accused must provide evidence to rebut this presumption to avoid conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
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
