Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH, J
Rajan P. George (Expired), Son Of George – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, in S.T. No.2015/2009 and that of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad-hoc)-I, Pathanamthitta, in Crl.A.No.253/2010, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (in short, ‘ NI Act’), are under challenge in this revision. Since the revision petitioner passed away during the pendency of this revision, his legal representatives were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 5.
2. The case of the complainant/second respondent is that two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each executed and issued by the original revision petitioner (referred to as ‘accused’ hereafter) towards the discharge of a liability he incurred with the second respondent in connection with three promissory notes, were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused, and that the accused did not care to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, despite the receipt of a statutory notice issued to him.
3. Before the Trial Court, the complainant was examined as PW1 and nine documents were marked as Exts P1 to P9. From
The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a successful prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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 under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that a cheque is deemed issued in discharge of debt unless the accused can prove otherwise, with liability established at ....
A cheque issued for a financial obligation creates a rebuttable presumption of debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which the accused failed to contradict.
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 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.
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.
Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
