Back
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
John Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Ramalingam – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.105 of 2017, dated 12.04.2019 and judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (FTCII), Coimbatore in C.C.No.74 of 2013, dated 12.04.2017.)
1. The convicted accused is the Revision Petitioner herein.
2. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No-II), Coimbatore.
3. After trial, the Court held that the private complainant is entitled for legal presumption under the said Act and as the respondent in accused failed to rebut the presumption therein, the trial Court convicted the accused and laid the sentence of imprisonment.
4. The appeal, Crl.A.No.105 of 2017, was dismissed by the learned IVth Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and hence the present revision is filed by the complainant.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.
6. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that, though
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, and the failure to do so can lead to conviction.
The presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque when the execution is not denied, and the need for positive evidence to prove lack of means of the respondent.
The main legal point established is that once the signature and execution of a cheque are admitted, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issu....
The burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, once the execution of a cheque is admitted or proven, a presumption under Section 139 arises in favour of the complainant, and the burden shifts to t....
The duty of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the limited scope of revision for interference with lower courts' judgments.
The burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused can probabilize her defense without....
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
