Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
S. Premachandran – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesh Babu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal under the ni act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. trial court's process of evidence gathering. (Para 3 , 5 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. presumption of cheque liability under sections 138 and 139. (Para 11 , 18 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 4. details of accused and complainant's relationship. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. arguments regarding the loan transactions. (Para 16 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. standard of proof to rebut presumption of liability. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. court's conclusion on evidence and liability. (Para 43 , 44) |
| 8. dismissal of criminal appeal. (Para 45) |
JUDGMENT :
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.128 of 2016 dated 26.02.2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Tirunelveli, in acquitting the respondents / accused 1 and 2 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 herein after 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 t
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 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....
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 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.
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 presumption in favor of the cheque holder established under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through a probable defense, and the prosecution must prove the existence ....
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.
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 under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
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....
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
