Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Anil Kumar Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Bijay Prasad Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's revision against conviction. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. opposite party alleges loan and cheque issuance. (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. presumption of cheque issuance confirmed. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's affirmation based on evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. revision dismissed by the court. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Instant revision is filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner assailing the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 30th May, 2022 passed in connection with 1CC No.16 of 2019 by learned JMFC, Champua as at Annexure-2 and the judgment dated 29th January, 2024 confirming the same by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2022 under Annexure-3 on the grounds inter alia that such decision is unjust, illegal and perverse and hence, liable to be set aside for the ends of justice.
2.1. In support of issuance of cheque and the liability against the petitioner, the opposite party examined himself as C.W.1 and another witness, namely, C.W.2, whereas, the petitioner examined him as D.W.1. In support of the case, the opposite party proved nine exhibits but in the
A presumption exists that a cheque is issued for consideration; the burden is on the accused to rebut this presumption, which was not met in this case.
The drawer of a cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act bears the burden to rebut the presumption of liability; failure to do so can result in conviction for cheque dishonour.
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
In dishonored cheque cases under the N.I. Act, the presumption of debt arises upon dishonor, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence.
The arraignment of a company as an accused is a condition precedent for its prosecution, and the presumption of debt or legally enforceable liability can be rebutted by the defense.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be issued for discharging a debt, which the accused must reb....
The court confirmed that presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act applies, shifting the burden of proof to the accused in a cheque dishonor case, with concurrent findings of fact upheld....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
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
