Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Diwan Chand – Appellant
Versus
Mast Ram – Respondent
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2014, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). (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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was alleged that the accused had taken a contract for the preparation of plots for the Housing Board, Bajaura. They hired an excavator owned by the complainant at the rate of Rs. 750/- per hour with effect from 12.05.2007 till 03.11.2007. They operated the excavator for 1225 hours during the aforesaid period. An amount of Rs. 9,18,750/- was due to the complainant as
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....
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 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 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.
The court emphasized that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption that cheques are issued for discharging legal liabilities, which the accused must rebut.
The presumptions under sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act favor the holder, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the claims of liability.
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.
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.
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
