Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
PL. Karuppan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
R. Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. complainant's account of loan and cheque dishonor. (Para 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. accused's defense and rebuttal of claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. burden of proof and presumptions under ni act. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. judgment and penalty imposed. (Para 37 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in C.C.No.153 of 2019, dated 05.06.2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Karaikudi, 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 accused, having good acquaintance with the complainant, requested for a loan for development of his grocery shop, renewal of his son Singapore permit and for family expenses. Accordingly, the accused b
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
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
