Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
M.R. Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Chengaia Babu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.Nirmal Kumar, J.
The appellant as complainant filed private complaint against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in S.T.C.No.19 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Walajapet (trial Court). The trial Court by judgment dated 29.10.2020 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent. Against which, the present criminal appeal is filed.
2.Despite service of notice and the respondent’s name printed in the cause list, there was no representation for the respondent either in person or by any counsel. Hence, this Court by order dated 22.09.2025 appointed Ms.Harshana.T as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.
3.Gist of the case is that during the month of July 2017, for urgent business requirement, the respondent approached the appellant for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and promised to repay within three months. Believing the same, the appellant gave loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. In discharge of liability, the respondent issued a cheque (Ex.P1) dated 10.10.2017 bearing No.919736 drawn on State Bank of India, Walajapet. When the appellant presented the cheque (Ex.P1) for encashment in Indian Bank, Walajapet on 10.10.2
Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant when adequate evidence is presented.
Court reaffirmed that in cheque dishonor cases, the appellant must prove the cheque's issuance arises from a legitimate debt obligation, especially when prior agreements exist contradicting claimed t....
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 presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies strongly in favor of the complainant, and the accused must provide substantive evidence to rebut it for a successful defens....
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.
An appellate court must refrain from overturning an acquittal unless clear evidence of wrongful appreciation of facts or perverse findings by the trial court is evident.
The appellate court must affirm acquittals unless demonstrated misconduct or perverse conclusions arise, as rights of the accused and statutory presumptions demand careful scrutiny.
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 appellant must establish personal liability for a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; mere presumption is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
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
