Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B.SNEHALATHA
Bastin P.C. S/o Cheru – Appellant
Versus
George – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal presumptions under the negotiable instruments act. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 2. court's reasoning on notice service and rebuttal of presumption. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. conclusion on the validity of the cheque and liability. (Para 25) |
| 4. final judgment and dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 26 , 27) |
ORDER :
1. Revision petitioner/accused assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act).
2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused as before the trial court.
3. Complaint was filed alleging that on 20.5.2006, accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant and in discharge of the said liability, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.8.2006 drawn on UTI Bank Ltd. Tirupur. Upon presentation of Ext.P1 cheque for encashment, it was bounced due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Though the complainant caused to send Ext.P5 lawyer notice, it was returned as 'unclaimed'. Accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption of 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.
The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act facilitates favoring complainants in dishonor cases unless convincingly rebutted by the accused.
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 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.
The presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is upheld unless conclusively disproven by the accused.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the existence of a debt, which must be done with credible evidence.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the case.
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 presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the N.I. Act does not place the burden on the complainant, but rather requires the accused to provide evidence to rebut it.
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
