Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
S.T. Sukumar – Appellant
Versus
P. Elakkiya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of loan and cheque issuance (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's failure to establish liability (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent's defense supported by evidence (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. trial court's reasoning and verification of facts (Para 7) |
| 5. conclusion of appeal and dismissal (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent in S.T.C.No.28 of 2019. The trial Court, by the judgment dated 29.09.2021 dismissed the complaint, acquitted the respondent/accused, against which, the present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent is known to the appellant. On 12.01.2019, the respondent had taken a hand loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from the appellant and promised to repay the same. In discharge of the said liability, she issued a cheque bearing No.000052 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Thiruthuraipoondi branch, dated 18.01.2019 for Rs.1,30,000/- and informed him to present the cheque on due date and collect the amount. The appellant presented the cheque in Canara Bank, Thiruthuraipoondi Branch. The cheque was dishonoured and returned for the reason 'Funds insuff
The statutory presumption in favor of cheque validity under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted if the accused provides credible evidence of prior repayment or discharge of the obligation.
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply when the complainant fails to provide sufficient details of the loan transaction.
The issuance of a negotiable instrument establishes a presumption of liability, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the debt, as established by Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
The absence of evidence for a legally enforceable debt results in the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act not operating in favor of the complainant.
The court held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused bears the burden to rebut the presumption that a cheque was issued for a valid debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the case.
The court established that once a cheque is issued and signed, a legal presumption exists regarding its use for a valid debt, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to deny its validity.
Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant when adequate evidence is presented.
A signed cheque establishes a presumption of liability; the accused must provide evidence to rebut this presumption to avoid conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
