Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C. Anand – Appellant
Versus
R. Muthuswamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal had been filed against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, in C.C. No. 222 of 2012, dated 22.04.2015.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The Appellant herein had filed C.C. No. 222 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem contending that he knew the Accused /Respondent herein for the past 10 years. According to the Appellant/Complainant, having regard to such proximity of their relationship, the Accused requested the Appellant/Complainant to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to meet his urgent family and business needs. On the basis of such request, the Appellant had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent/Accused on 28.07.2012. On receipt of the amount, the Accused issued the Cheque No. 0240730 dated 28.09.2012 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Salem in favour of the Complainant. When the said cheque was presented by the Appellant with his Bankers Urban Bank, Ammapet Branch on 05.10.2012. On 11.10.2012 the cheque was returned along with a memo indicating that the cheque was issued from an “NPA Account”. Therefore, on 15
The court emphasized that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the holder of the cheque, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate othe....
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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 presumption of consideration in cheque cases can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden to the complainant to prove the debt, which was not satisfied in this case.
The judgment establishes that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act place the burden on the accused to prove the non-existence of a debt, and misapplication of unrelat....
Dishonour of cheque – Where accused has succeeded in rebutting statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he has to be acquitted.
The failure of the accused to respond to a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act supports the presumption of debt and liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt, and the rebuttable n....
The appellant failed to establish the existence of a loan to support the cheque under Section 138, and once the accused probablized his defence, the evidential burden shifted back to 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
