Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Aneesha, W/o Bahuleyan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fundamentals of cheque issuance and cash cheque disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. judicial observations on the nature of evidence presented. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. final conclusion on acquittal due to insufficient evidence. (Para 4 , 18) |
| 4. arguments on the status of cash cheques and necessary proof. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. clarification of presumption application under ni act. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
2. The case of the complainant in brief, as per the complaint, is as follows:-
3. To substantiate the case, the complainant himself was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked as exhibits on the side of the complainant. No defence evidence was adduced. On going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). In default of payment of compensation, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
5. Heard Adv. Harish Gopinath, who appeared for t
A cash cheque does not attract the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, necessitating the complainant to prove all elements of the offence without reliance on presumptions.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act does not apply to cash cheques; thus, the complainant must substantiate the prosecution with evidence.
Dishonour of cheque – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
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
