Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Ponsingh – Appellant
Versus
S.Rajaseljer @ Christantine Rajasekher – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in C.C.No.420 of 2014, dated 17.05.2022, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in acquitting the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in the trial Court.
4. The case of the complainant is that the complainant sold a portion of his land in Melacheval, Tirunelveli District to the accused for Rs.23,00,000/- and at that time, the accused agreed to purchase the remaining lands of the complainant and requested the complainant to execute a power of attorney deed in favour of the accused's friend Kandasamy and further agreed to sell the lands and pay the sale price within a year. Both the complainant and the accused entered into an agreement in that regard and accordingly the complainant executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the acc
The presumption in favor of the cheque holder established under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through a probable defense, and the prosecution must prove the existence ....
The burden lies on the complainant to prove the issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt, which was not demonstrated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in rebutting the presumption available to the complainant under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the impact of civil court j....
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.
The burden of proof on the accused to raise a probable defense and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A drawer of a cheque may incur liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless they can sufficiently rebut the statutory presumptions of consideration and debt.
The appellate court overturned the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act, rejecting the accused's claims due to insufficient evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a cheque issued as security for a legally enforceable debt or liability falls under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
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
