Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
A. Arun – Appellant
Versus
New Everest Traders, Rep. By its Proprietor, M. Kathiresan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion of the statutory presumption under ni act. (Para 8 , 12 , 18) |
| 3. defendant's claims regarding the cheque and its implications. (Para 10 , 23) |
| 4. establishing presumption and burden of proof. (Para 36) |
| 5. final ruling and penalties imposed. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.48 of 2022, dated 07.10.2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Uthamapalayam, 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 respondent 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.The complainant's case is :
a) The second accused is the owner of the first accused concern. The second accused had good acquaintance with the complainant for several years. He approached the complainant and requested for a hand
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....
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.
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.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
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
