Back
G. K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
V. Jegadeesan – Appellant
Versus
R. Raju – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) Thanjavur in Crl.M.P.No.33 of 2018, dated 12.03.2020, convict and punish the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.)
1. This Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment passed in Crl.M.P.No.33 of 2018, dated 12.03.2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) Thanjavur, thereby acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused. The appellant lodged a complaint alleging that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on 23.04.2018 and he had undertaken to repay the said amount within three months. On the same day, the respondent executed a promissory note in favour of the appellant/defacto complainant. Thereafter, in order to repay the said amount, the accused had issued a post dated cheque, dated 23.08.2018 to discharge the existing valid. The appellant presented the said cheque for collection and the same was returned 'dishonoured' for the reason that '
The burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the complainant, and the accused has the right to establish a probable defense based on the complainant's lack of financial capacity.
The burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Dishonored of Cheque - Presumption in favour of holder - The presumption attached to Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does comes into play, but yet, this presumption is rebuttable.
The foundational facts required to draw statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be proved with evidence, and the presumption is rebuttable.
Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless disproven by the accused, and the burden cannot shift excessively onto the complainant.
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 burden of proof under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies on the accused to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or liability.
The absence of evidence for a legally enforceable debt results in the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act not operating in favor of 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
