Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J
Ratheesh S/o T.P. Sasidharan Nair – Appellant
Versus
K. Sreekumar S/o Kesavapillai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The complainant in S.T. No. 97/2011 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, has filed this appeal, with the leave of this Court, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 30.05.2013, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused in the above case, where the prosecution alleges commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred as ‘NI Act’ for short] by the accused. The 1st respondent herein is the accused before the trial court and the 2nd respondent herein is the State of Kerala, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘complainant’ and ‘accused’ hereafter.
4. The case of the complainant before the trial court is that, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant on 08.03.2011 and agreed to repay the same. Accordingly, cheque drawn at State Bank of Travancore, Kayamkula
The court emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act requires the accused to rebut the claim that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt, regardless of who filled it out.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on the accused to disprove the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court reaffirmed that the burden to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies with the accused, and a signed blank cheque can still be valid if issued towards....
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act requires the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt, and mere suggestions during cross-examination do not suff....
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act requires the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt, and mere suggestions during cross-examination do not suff....
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.
A signed cheque creates a presumption of liability in favor of the payee, where the accused must prove otherwise to avoid conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The signed blank cheque carries a legal presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate non-liability.
The presumption of validity of a cheque under Section 139 of the NI Act remains unless the accused provides cogent evidence to rebut it.
The presumption of validity of a cheque under Section 139 of the NI Act remains unless the accused provides cogent evidence to rebut it.
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
