Back
G. K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
S. Jegadeesan – Appellant
Versus
N. Vaithiyalingam – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397(1) r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the acquittal Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.198 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai, dated 14.09.2016 and confirmed by the Judgment dated 09.11.2018 in C.A.No.91 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.)
1. This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed in S.T.C.No.198 of 2012, dated 14.09.2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai, confirming the Judgment made in C.A.No.91 of 2016, dated 09.11.2018 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
2. The petitioner is the complainant and the respondent is an accused in the complaint lodged by the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner had lent a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- to the respondent for his urgent business purpose and also to meet out the expenses for the reconstruction of his lodge. Towards repayment of the said am
The burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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 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....
When the issuance of a cheque and the signature thereon are not denied, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, shifting the burden to the accused to pr....
Accused cannot rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act without entering witness box.
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 presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains in favor of the holder unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut it.
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the payee in case of dishonour of a cheque, and the burden of proof lies on the drawer to rebut the presumption.
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
