Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Balaraman – Appellant
Versus
Balasubramaniam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal and background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defense arguments and statutory presumptions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's consideration of evidence and standards (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. reversal of lower appellate court judgment (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion and direction for remuneration (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
The petitioner/accused in a case filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) in C.C.No.551 of 2017 was acquitted by the Trial Court by judgment dated 23.10.2018. The respondent/complainant filed an appeal in C.A.No.63 of 2019. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 27.08.2019 in a haste without hearing the petitioner, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and convicted the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.389 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 13.07.2021 finding that the Lower Appellate Court had reversed the judgment of the Trial Court but failed to give opportunity and hear the petitioner to defend the case, set aside the judgment dated 27.08.2019 and remanded the case back to the Lower Appellate Court. Ther
The appellate court must affirm acquittals unless demonstrated misconduct or perverse conclusions arise, as rights of the accused and statutory presumptions demand careful scrutiny.
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.
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.
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 of consideration in cheque transactions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, places the burden on the accused to disprove the validity of the cheque.
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
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 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 appellant must establish the monetary transaction and discharge the initial burden to raise the presumption under sec. 139 of N.I. Act to succeed in a case under sec. 138 of N.I. 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
