Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.HEMALATHA
R.Saravanakumar – Appellant
Versus
E. Muthulakshmi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. HEMALATHA, J.
1. Challenging the order of acquittal passed by the II Additional District Judge, Erode on 27.03.2017 in Crl.A.No.194/2016, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant.
2. The appellant is the complainant in S.T.C. No.231/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court – I, Erode.
3. The case of the appellant/complainant in a nutshell is as follows :
i. The respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant on 06.01.2014 for her business purpose and issued a cheque bearing number 738824 (Ex.P1) drawn on IDBI Bank, Sathy Road, Erode Branch.
ii. According to the complainant, the accused promised to repay the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
iii. When the cheque was presented by the complainant for collection on 19.02.2014 through his banker, viz., Punjab National Bank, Erode Branch, the same was returned on 20.02.2014 for the reason "Account Closed" as is seen from the cheque return memo (Ex.P2).
iv. Therefore, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 27.02.2014 (Ex.P3) to the accused calling upon her to pay the amount due under the cheque within 15 days from
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless disproven by the accused, and the burden cannot shift excessively onto the complainant.
The burden of proof under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies on the accused to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or liability.
The presumption of innocence is reinforced in acquittal cases, with the burden of proof on the complainant to establish the enforceable debt and financial capacity.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt, and the burden to rebut t....
The shifting burden of proof, statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the consideration of financial capacity in cases of lending and borrowing.
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 presumption of consideration for a cheque does not negate the complainant's burden to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt, which can be rebutted by the accused.
Dishonour of cheque – Where accused has succeeded in rebutting statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he has to be acquitted.
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
