Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
P.S.S. Bagyalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
K. Vijayakumar – Respondent
ORDER :
The appellant, who is the defacto complainant in S.T.C.No.153 of 2005, has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal judgment passed in S.T.C.No.153 of 2005, dated 31.05.2011, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai.
2.The case of the appellant is that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for his family expenses, from him. Both have had long relationship prior to the borrowal. Towards repayment of the said amount, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.621515, under Ex.P.1, dated 08.12.2003, for the value of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Vinayagar Nagar Branch, Madurai, in favour of the appellant. While, the appellant presented the same on the same day for encashment through account maintained by him with the Indian Overseas Bank, Vadampokki Stree Branch, Madurai, the same was returned on 09.12.2003 with an endorsement “Insufficient of Funds”, for which, the appellant issued the statutory notice on 07.01.2004. The notice was duly served on the respondent on 09.01.2004 and further, the respondent neither paid any amount nor sent any reply. Hence, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and the accused can discharge the burden of proof by raising a probable defense.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
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
