Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Vignesh Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
K.Vasanthi Ramesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the cheque and dishonor. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. discussion on the statutory presumptions. (Para 10 , 12 , 18) |
| 3. examination of the defence and evidence presented. (Para 22 , 26 , 30) |
| 4. concluding observations about liability and judgment. (Para 41 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.973 of 2017, dated 29.11.2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, in acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the trial Court.
4.Admittedly, the complainant was doing business in the name and style of 'Vignesh Enterprises' and the second accused had business transaction with the complainant. It is not in dispute that the second accused is the husband of the first accused and the second accused was doing business in sel
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.
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
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 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 presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
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....
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.
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
