Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Badharudeen
Vishnu Prasad, S/o. Santhakumari – Appellant
Versus
Gracy Yohannan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(A. Badharudeen, J.)
This appeal has been filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , with the leave of this Court, challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kollam in Crl. Appeal No.94 of 2012 dated 17.06.2013, after setting aside the judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred as ‘NI Act’ for short] imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Punalur in C.C. No.103 of 2009 dated 20.03.2012. The appellant herein is the complainant and the 1st respondents is the accused in C.C. No.103/2009. The 2nd respondent herein is the State of Kerala.
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 is that, the accused borrowed Rs.3 Lakh from him on 19.08.2008 and promised to repay the same on 19.09.2008. Accordingly, the accused issued cheque
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 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 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.
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 burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the execution of the cheque, especially when the accused denies the transaction.
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
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
