Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
M. Star Janet Joy – Appellant
Versus
T. Justin Dhas – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal procedures and complainant's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. legal presumptions regarding negotiable instruments. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 22 , 30) |
| 3. defense arguments regarding repayment and acquaintance. (Para 10 , 12 , 19 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. burden of proof in cheque dishonor cases. (Para 18 , 20 , 28 , 32 , 39) |
| 5. sentencing and conclusion of appeal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.87 of 2016 dated 29.06.2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram, 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 complainant's husband and the accused are friends and on account of that friendship
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 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 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
