Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Yog Raj – Appellant
Versus
Bodh Raj @ Bitu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). (Partiesshall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the complainant and the accused were known to each other. The accused required money in August 2010. He approached the complainant for the financial assistance of Rs.10.00 lacs. The complainant advanced Rs.10.00 lacs, and the accused promised to repay the amount within three months. The complainant demanded the money, and the accused issued a cheque of Rs.10.00 lacs for discharging his legal liability. The complainant presented
The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused.
The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt in a Section 138 NI Act case, and discrepancies in testimony can undermine the presumption of consideration.
The presumption of consideration for a cheque does not negate the complainant's burden to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt, which can be rebutted by the accused.
Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act based on reliable forensic evidence disproving accused's signature on cheque, as presumption under Sections 118 and 139 re....
In appeals against acquittal under NI Act s.138, High Court interferes only if perverse, misreads evidence, or sole guilt view possible; reasonable defence rebutting presumption warrants upholding ac....
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
The issuance of a cheque signifies a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the burden to prove otherwise lies with the accused, not the complainant.
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
