Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Badharudeen
Shabir Ali, S/o. Abdul Latheef – Appellant
Versus
S.Ramesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Badharudeen, J.
The complainant in C.C. No. 281 of 2011 on the files of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Marad cases), Kozhikode, has led this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.861 of 2011 dated 01.03.2012 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode Division arising from judgment in C.C. No. 281 of 2011 dated 01.12.2011 on the files of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode.
2. The 1st respondent is the accused before the trial court and the appellant before the Sessions court. The 2nd respondent is the State of Kerala.
3. Heard the matter in detail. Perused the records and the judgments rendered by the trial court as well as the appellate court.
4. For effective and easy discussion, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as ‘complainant’ and ‘accused’ hereafter.
Short facts:-
5. On dishonour of cheque dated 09.04.2011 for Rs.2,75,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for a legaly enforceable debt, the complainant lodged complaint before the trial court alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 13
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....
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
