Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Narendran – Appellant
Versus
K.Vijayan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
1. The appellant as complainant filed private complaint for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in STC.No.90 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur (trial Court) against the respondent. The trial Court by judgment dated 29.01.2020 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent. Against which, present criminal appeal filed.
2.Despite service of notice to the respondent and his name printed in the cause list, there was no representation for the respondent either in person or by any counsel. Hence, this Court by order dated 30.10.2025 appointed Ms.J.Hakshara Shree as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.
3.Gist of the case is that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) from the appellant on 15.10.2012 for his business purpose and promised to repay within one month from the date of loan received. But the respondent never repaid the loan amount, after repeated request, the respondent in repayment of loan issued a cheque (Ex.P1) bearing No.325357 dated 25.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) drawn on the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Perambalur to the appellant
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....
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 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....
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.
An appellate court must refrain from overturning an acquittal unless clear evidence of wrongful appreciation of facts or perverse findings by the trial court is evident.
An appellant must establish personal liability for a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; mere presumption is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
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 of proof on the complainant to establish the legally enforceable liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the importance of the date of presentation of the ....
The burden of proof under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies on the accused to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or liability.
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
