Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Balakrishnan
K. Jayakumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
P. V. Balakrishnan, J.
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1993 of 2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. He stood trial before that court for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused who was a family friend of hers, borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from her to meet his urgent business needs, by promising to repay the amount within a period of one month. For the purpose of discharging the above liability, the accused also issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 15.06.2009 for Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Arumanoor Branch. When the cheque was presented for collection, it got dishonoured stating that 'funds are insufficient'. The statutory notice issued was responded with a reply notice dated 20.08.2009, raising untenable contentions and the cheque amount remained unpaid. Hence, the complainant approached the trial court by filing the afore complaint.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of t
Accused failed to rebut presumption of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt, resulting in conviction under Section 138.
When a complainant discharges their initial burden under Sections 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, presumptions in their favor come into play, which can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities.
The complainant must prove the source of funds for any alleged debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the presumption of debt is rebuttable.
The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act favor the complainant once the issuance of the cheque is established, placing the burden on the accused to provide credible evide....
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 court reaffirmed statutory presumptions under the NI Act regarding cheque liability, emphasizing the evidentiary burden on the accused.
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
The petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act led to upholding his conviction for dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds.
The statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unless the accused provides adequate rebuttal evidence, which was not done in this case.
The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, leading to acquittal if the complainant fails to prove a legally enforceable debt.
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
