Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
B. Vengateswaran – Appellant
Versus
U. Thenappan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the judgment dated 20.09.2019 passed in C.A.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur modifying the order dated 30.11.2017 passed in S.T.C.No.252 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial level at Ambattur.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision, are as follows:-
2.1. As per the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant, the Complainant is engaged in the business of selling electronic goods in the name and style of M/s. Ragavendra Enterprises, having his showroom at No.41/52, K.K. Road, Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai. According to the Complainant, the Revision Petitioner/Accused is his close friend for more than 15 years. It was stated that the Revision Petitioner/Accused is engaged in the contractual business with T.I. Cycles of India, Ambattur. During March 2011, the Revision Petitioner/Accused represented to the Complainant that the payment bills were not cleared by T.I. Cycles Company and for clearance of the bills, they are expecting gifts such as LCD Television, Air Conditioners etc., There
The courts affirmed that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the initial presumption of liability must be rebutted by the accused with satisfactory evidence, which was not done in th....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
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 statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once the foundational fact of borrowing is established, shifting the burde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the importance of proving the contrary to rebut the pres....
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 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 main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence 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
