Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Meghnad Padhan – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Sinha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh confirming the order of conviction and sentence directed in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2019 by the learned J.M.F.C., Titilagarh on the grounds inter alia that the same is not legally tenable and hence, liable to be set aside.
2. According to the petitioner, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is otherwise bad in law and hence, liable to be interfered with. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and erroneously reached at a conclusion that he is guilty of the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. One of the grounds of challenge is that the petitioner had taken a consistent plea before the learned courts below that he had never maintained the Bank Account, rather, such an account had been opened in his name by the opposite party with a view to reutilize the same to manage financial liabilities, but it has not been t
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.
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.
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 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 under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt is significant; an accused must substantiate any rebuttal with cr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of discharge of debt or liabili....
The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act can be upheld, and the defense of a lost cheque must be substantiated with evidence to rebut the presumption.
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
