Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
Abdurahiman S/o.Alavi – Appellant
Versus
Muhammedkutty T.K., S/o.Kunhamutty – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Complainant in ST No.99/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna, has filed this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C .’ for short), with leave of this Court challenging judgment of acquittal in the said case dated 20.11.2013. The 1st respondent herein is the accused before the trial court and the 2nd respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant as well as the learned counsel for the accused/1st respondent. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records of the trial court.
3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as 'complainant' and 'accused' for easy reference.
4. The complainant approached the magistrate court on the allegation that the accused committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for short). The specific case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees six lakh only) from the complainant on 16.09.2011 and issued Ext.P1 cheque, dated 2
The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish a discharge of liability once raised, and non-examination of the accused does not invalidate supporting evidence.
The issuance of a cheque does not discharge a liability unless the underlying obligation is established; evidence supporting borrower-lender relationship prevailed over claims of the cheque being iss....
The presumption of innocence reinforces acquittal in criminal cases, requiring substantial proof from the complainant for claims under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the transaction leading to the issuance of a cheque, and failure to do so results in acquittal of the accused.
A cheque issued without a legally enforceable debt does not attract penal consequences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a cheque dishonour case, complainant's unshaken testimony on transaction discharges initial burden, triggering statutory presumptions that accused must rebut with evidence to avoid conviction.
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.
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 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.
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
