Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Jagatheeswaran M/s. J.K. Steel Corporation – Appellant
Versus
N. Eswaramoorthy (Deceased) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the Judgment dated 04.01.2020 made in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2018 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore confirming the Judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2017 made in C.C. No. 141 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II (Magisterial Level), Coimbatore.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision, are as follows:-
2.1. Originally, the deceased complainant had filed the Complaint in C.C. No. 141 of 2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Revision Petitioners/Accused herein. As per the said complaint, the Revision Petitioner/first Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the deceased Complainant for his business purpose on 25.02.2010 and agreed to repay the said amount on demand. However, inspite of repeated requests, the Revision Petitioner/first Accused did not repay the amount. After persistent demands, the Revision Petitioner/first Accused issued a cheque No. 890801 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Kurichi Branch, Coimbatore. When the cheque was presented fo
The courts held that the presumption of cheque validity under Section 138 persists until contradicted by credible evidence, which was not achieved by the accused.
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 court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act in establishing the guilt of the accus....
The failure of the complainant to tender for further cross-examination led to the discarding of his evidence, which invalidated the judgments of conviction.
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 accused may rebut statutory presumptions of liability in cheque dishonor cases; once done, burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the case effectively.
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.
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
