Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
C. Vidya – Appellant
Versus
K. Srinivasan – Respondent
ORDER :
(SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.)
This Criminal Revision Case had been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2017 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem confirming the Judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed in STC. No. 4 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this Criminal Revision Case, are as follows:-
2.1. The Respondent herein, as Complainant, filed S.T.C. No. 4 of 2016 contending that the Petitioner/Accused approached him for extending financial assistance and at her request, he paid Rs.9,34,000/- on 02.03.2015 to meet her urgent needs. On receipt of the amount, the Accused assured to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, the Accused failed and neglected to pay the amount inspite of repeated demands. Ultimately, the Accused issued the cheque dated 18.11.2015 for Rs.9,34,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Shewapet Branch, Salem. The Complainant presented the cheque with his bankers – Indian Bank, Shevapet Branch, Salem for encashment. However, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds'.
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.
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 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.
The capacity to advance the loan and the burden of proving the transaction creating an existing debt are fundamental facts that the complainant must establish. The presumption under Section 139 of 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 issuance of a bounced cheque towards a legally dischargeable debt constitutes an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption in favor of the complainant under Sec....
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.
The main legal point established is that the failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the Act.
Failure to raise probable defence sustains presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act regarding cheque for lawful debt; revisional court upholds concurrent conviction absent miscarriage of justice.....
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
