Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J
C. Anilkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
This criminal revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Neyattinkara in Crl.Appeal No.250/2023 dated 16.04.2024.
2. The revision petitioner herein was the accused in S.T. No.2507/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.250/2023.
3. The revision petitioner faced prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. The 2nd respondent is the complainant.
4. The case of the 2nd respondent complainant is that, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused had issued a cheque dated 15.03.2016.
5. On presentment, the cheque was returned unpaid stating the reason ‘funds insufficient’ .
6. The complainant issued a statutory notice and thereafter filed the complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court, upon hearing the revision pe
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affirming the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and allowing time for payment.
Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque when the execution is not denied, and the need for positive evidence to prove lack of means of the respondent.
The main legal point established is the presumption of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when a cheque is dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the legal requirements for ....
The execution of a cheque is proved, and the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the NI Act stands unless rebutted by the accused, which did not occur in this case.
The main legal point established is that once the signature and execution of a cheque are admitted, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issu....
When a complainant discharges their initial burden under Sections 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, presumptions in their favor come into play, which can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities.
The statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once the foundational fact of borrowing is established, shifting the burde....
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the issuance of a cheque remains unless rebutted by the accused, and failure to provide any evidence leads to conviction.
The court ruled that the failure to rebut the legal presumption of debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act justifies conviction, with the sentence modified to compensation.
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
