Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
G. Kiruba Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chitraselvi, Assistant Professor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of private complaint and appeal process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of loan and dishonor of cheque. (Para 4) |
| 3. burden of proof on accused regarding cheque presumption. (Para 5) |
| 4. accused's defense on loan improbability and cheque credibility. (Para 6) |
| 5. judicial principles on appellate court's review of acquittal. (Para 7) |
| 6. trial court's reasoning is upheld by appellate court. (Para 8) |
| 7. dismissing the appeal with appreciation for legal aid counsel. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
1. The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint against the respondent in C.C.No.332 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal. The Trial Court by judgment dated 25.03.2021 dismissed the complaint and discharged the respondent. Against which, the present appeal filed.
2. In this case, notice was ordered to the respondent as per the address in the complaint but the same was returned with an endorsement “left”. Finding that the appeal is pending for quite sometime, this Court appointed Ms.Vrindha as legal aid counsel on 09.12.2025.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as complainant and accused.
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....
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 complainant must prove financial capacity to lend funds in a dishonoured cheque case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of liability under Section 139 can be rebutted by th....
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 is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
The failure of the accused to respond to a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act supports the presumption of debt and liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
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.
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
