Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J
D. Kiyanchand – Appellant
Versus
C.R. Umapathy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal had been filed to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore acquitting the Accused in STC.No.126 of 2011, dated 14.08.2012.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The Appellant herein is the Complainant. The Complainant had filed the Complaint in S.T.C. No. 126 of 2011 alleging that on 01.09.2008, the Respondent herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from him for business purpose. Subsequently, on 13.10.2008, a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs was issued by the Respondent towards the said loan amount. However, when the cheque was presented for collection on 13.10.2008, it was dishonoured by the bankers of the Respondent on 15.11.2008. Therefore, for having caused the dishonour of the cheque, a legal notice dated 17.11.2008 was issued by the Complainant for which a reply notice dated 03.12.2008 was issued with false and untenable averments. Therefore, the complaint was filed by the Appellant/Complainant.
2.2. Before the trial Court, the Complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and one Ravirajan was examined as P.W-2. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 were marked by the Complainant. On b
The presumption of consideration in cheque cases can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden to the complainant to prove the debt, which was not satisfied in this case.
The appellant failed to establish the existence of a loan to support the cheque under Section 138, and once the accused probablized his defence, the evidential burden shifted back to the complainant.
The failure of the accused to respond to a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act supports the presumption of debt and liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
A cheque issued as security does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of liability can be rebutted by presenting credible....
The court emphasized that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the holder of the cheque, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate othe....
The judgment established the principle that the presumption of debt and liability under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act can only be rebutted by probabalising a defence, and the standard of proof required is pre....
Dishonour of cheque – When Complainant has not established his financial status, presumption is not available in his favour.
In dishonour cases under Section 138, the burden lies on the Complainant to prove the issuance of the cheque for a legally enforceable debt, as contradictory evidence can lead to acquittal.
The acquittal in dishonor of cheques was justified as the Complainant failed to prove the issuance and non-payment of cheques under Section 138, leading to abuse of process of law.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 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
