Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN
Santhosh Eapen – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the complaint regarding cheque dishonor. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and rebuttal of presumption. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. ccourt's reasoning on burden of proof and final decision. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.72 of 2021, pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV, Kottayam. The genesis of the case is the 2nd respondent's complaint regarding commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the N.I.Act' for short) by the petitioner. In his complaint, the 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioner had borrowed amounts from him for business purposes. Although portion of the amount was repaid, as on 02.12.2020, Rs.24,80,000/- was due from the petitioner. In discharge of the liability, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque and assured that there was sufficient balance in his account. Contrary to the assurance, the cheque, on presentation was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. In spite of issuing notice demanding the amount, the petitioner did not make the payment or send a reply.
2. In order to prove his case, the 2nd respondent mounted the b
The burden of proof to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act lies with the accused, who must adduce evidence to challenge the validity of the cheque.
Accused must prove that a signed cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt, as merely admitting the signature imposes the burden of proof under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Point of Law : Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal under - complainant has failed to prove even the execution of the cheque since his very specific case that it was a cheque written using a pen in his pr....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, and the requirement for the accused t....
(1) Production of additional evidence – Power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should only be exercised only in interest of justice.(2) Court is not required to come to aid and....
The court established that once a cheque is issued and signed, a legal presumption exists regarding its use for a valid debt, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to deny its validity.
Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act raises presumption that a drawer of handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless it is proved that cheque was not in discharge of debt or any other l....
The rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the complainant to establish the issuance of the cheque for the discharge of debt.
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.
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
