Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Sajimon.K.A. – Appellant
Versus
Kuruvilla Mani, S/o. Mani, Proprietor – Respondent
ORDER :
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.1488/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The revision petitioner is the accused and the 1st respondent herein is the complainant in the above case. (hereinafter parties are mentioned in accordance with their status before the trial court).
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The accused had money transaction with the complainant. The accused, in discharge of his legally enforceable debt towards the complainant, issued a cheque dated 16.66.2015 of HDFC Bank, ATPAR Branch, Kottayam for Rs.12 lakhs. The complainant presented the cheque through its bankers SBT, Manarcadu. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient." On 05.09.2015, the Bank intimated the complainant on dishonouring of the cheque. On 15.09.2015, the complainant issued a registered Lawyer's Notice to the accused. On 01.10.2015, the accused received the notice. The accused, however, did not pay the cheque amount and there
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 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 upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affirming the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and allowing time for payment.
Admission of cheque issuance raises presumption of liability under NI Act Ss.118/139; rebuttal requires evidence beyond CrPC 313 denial. Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence....
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption.
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 of cheque issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the evidential burden to the accused, who must rebut it to avoid conviction.
The court held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused bears the burden to rebut the presumption that a cheque was issued for a valid debt, which he failed to do.
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.
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
