Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ranjit Chand – Appellant
Versus
Yashpal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur (learned Trial Court), vide which, the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall 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 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Istruments Act (in short ‘NI Act’). It was asserted that the parties were known to each other. The accused approached the complainant in February 2008 and requested him to advance a sum of Rs. 30,000/-as a loan. The complainant paid the amount to the accused. The accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-drawn on UCO Bank, Bijhari to discharge his legal liability. The complainant presented the cheque before his Bank, from where it was sent to the Bank of the accused; however, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient
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 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 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.
Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of cheque that same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability and existence of legally rec....
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....
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court respects the presumption of innocence and can only overturn a trial court's acquittal if it is perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
The court affirmed that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted, and the burden remains on the complainant to substantiate the existence of a legally enforceable debt, failing....
The complainant must prove the grant of the loan and the legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. The presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and the onus is on the....
Point of Law : Presumption Under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of p....
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
