Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
T.Ramkumar – Appellant
Versus
Sivasamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment related to cheque dishonor and consequences. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court reinforced presumptive principles of liability in cheque cases. (Para 8 , 10 , 34) |
| 3. the ruling overturned the acquittal based on flawed reasoning. (Para 29 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.1427 of 2022 dated 27.12.2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as 'NI') Act.
2. The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent / accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.
4. The case of the complainant is that the accused having acquaintance with the complainant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- on 24.08.2020, R.2,00,000/- on 11.01.2021, Rs.50,000/- on 01.07.2021, Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.09.2021 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 02.10.2021, totalling Rs.10,00,000/- for his urgent exp
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.
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
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.
A complainant's debt recovery under the Negotiable Instruments Act relies on established presumptions, rendering the accused's claims of improper notice or lack of financial capacity irrelevant unles....
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 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....
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 statutory presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act establishes that the accused must rebut the existence of a debt with credible evidence; mere denial is insuffici....
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
