Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Babu Ram Parihar, S/o. Puna Ram – Appellant
Versus
Naveen Tak, S/o. Ummed Singh Tak – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Birendra Kumar, J.
1. This appeal against acquittal of the sole respondent has been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Leave to appeal was allowed by order dated 29.5.2023. Though, the appellant is a victim of crime, he may have preferred appeal before the Ordinary Court of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., however, the appellant chose to approach this Court for leave to appeal and leave has already been granted. This matter is being finally disposed off by this Court.
2. Heard the parties and perused the records.
3. The case and claim of the appellant is that he had advanced Rs.4,39,000/- to the sole respondent and to ensure repayment of the same, the sole respondent had issued cheque no. 626216 on 12.5.2009 of Rs.4,39,000/- (Ex.1). The cheque was presented to the bank and the bank returned it due to “insufficient funds” on 29.05.2009 (Ex.2). Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the sole respondent on 24.6.2009 (Ex.3). A copy of the registered receipts etc. are (Ex.5, Ex.6 and Ex.7). On failure of the sole respondent to pay back the cheque amount, the complaint was filed on 16.7.2009. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and proved the aforesaid fact
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to prove non-existence of debt, influencing the court's conviction decision.
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 under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
The accused can rebut the presumptions under the NI Act by providing a satisfactory explanation and pointing towards his innocence by the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's signature is established, it is presumed to be issued for a debt, shifting the burden to the....
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
The presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the complainant to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden shifts to the accused to disprove claims. Insufficie....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
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
