Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
S.K. Muthusami – Appellant
Versus
S. Bhuvaneswaran – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal had been filed against the Judgment dated 25.04.2016 passed in C.C. No.36 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The Appellant in this Appeal is the Complainant, who had filed the Complaint in C.C. No. 36 of 2009. As per the complaint, on 05.04.2008, the Respondent/Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and promised to repay the same in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid on 10.05.2008 and the other instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid on 20.05.2008. On receipt of the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- the Accused had issued two cheques, each for Rs.1,00,000/-. When the cheques were presented for collection through Federal Bank Limited, Erode Branch on 21.05.2008, they were returned on 22.05.2008 for the reason 'insufficient funds'. Therefore, the Appellant issued a statutory notice on 02.06.2008 calling upon the Respondent/Accused to pay the cheque amount. Though the Accused received the notice, he had not sent any reply and therefore, the complaint was filed.
2.2. In order to prove the averments in
The burden of proof shifts back to the Complainant after the Accused rebuts the initial presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, necessitating clear evidence of the l....
A complaint under Section 138 must provide sufficient details about the relationship and financial capacity; mere presumption is insufficient for conviction without material evidence.
The initial burden of proof lies with the Complainant to establish a legally enforceable debt, which was not met, leading to the reversal of the conviction.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies strongly in favor of the complainant, and the accused must provide substantive evidence to rebut it for a successful defens....
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
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 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.
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the initial burden on the complainant to prove the circumstances under which the cheque was issued and that it was....
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
