Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
T. Seenivasan – Appellant
Versus
P. Chandrasekaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed against acquittal under ni act (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. witnesses and evidence presented (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. presumptions under sections 118 and 139 (Para 12 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. standard of proof for rebutting presumption (Para 13 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. defendant rebutted presumptions successfully (Para 21 , 23 , 31) |
| 6. appeal dismissed; judgment confirmed (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT :
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in C.C.No.91 of 2015 dated 28.02.2018 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Palani, in acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as '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.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the records, upon satisfied that there existed a prima facie case took the case on file in C.C.No.91 of 2015 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearan
The court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
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.
The burden lies on the complainant to prove the issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt, which was not demonstrated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The main legal point established is that the failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the 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 presumptions under sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act favor the holder, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the claims of 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
