Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
M. Senthil Nathan – Appellant
Versus
K. Saravanan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the order of acquittal dated 05.10.2012 passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.797 of 2010 and consequently convict the respondent/accused for having committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:
2.1. As per the complaint in C.C. No. 797 of 2010 filed by the complainant, the Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as loan from the Complainant on 18.12.2008 and agreed to repay the same along with interest at 18% per annum. For securing the prompt repayment of the loan amount, the accused mortgage his property – wet land comprised in Survey No. 95/6 situated in Aameethanallur Village, Oothukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District within the Sub-Registration of Aarani and Registration District of Chennai North. The mortgage deed was registered as Document No.5846 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Aarani in favour of the Complainant. The Accused had also deposited the title deeds relating to the above said property to create collateral security for the said repayment o
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not favor the complainant when the evidence fails to establish that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable d....
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Point of law : Accused has succeeded in rebutting presumption, it is for complainant to prove existence of a debt in discharge of which subject cheque was issued
The presumption of issuance for repayment under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can be rebutted by the accused with sufficient evidence.
A presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of the N.I. Act arises when the cheque is admitted but may be rebutted by the accused, necessitating substantial evidence against it.
The burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the complainant, and the accused has the right to establish a probable defense based on the complainant's lack of financial capacity.
Dishonour of cheque – Where accused has succeeded in rebutting statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he has to be acquitted.
The cheque amount exceeding the borrowed amount negates the applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the Complainant to establish a legally enforceable debt.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
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
