Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Resham Singh – Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) - This is a revision preferred by a convict who has been awarded imprisonment of 1/ year for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act').
2. Complaint was filed after the cheque bearing No.019710 dated 15th of July, 2013 for an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- drawn on State Bank of India Branch Putlighar, Amritsar issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, was dishonoured on 29th of July, 2013 with remarks 'Insufficient Funds'. The cheque was again presented which was also dishonoured for the same reason vide memo dated 18th of September, 2013. Complainant served the petitioner-accused with legal notice dated 25th of September, 2013 through Registered A.D. post demanding the cheque amount. Admittedly, accused neither replied to the said notice nor paid the amount. After preliminary evidence, petitioner was summoned to face trial.
3. During the course of trial, petitioner-accused raised a defence w.r.t. non-enforceable legal liability at his end. Trial Court after analyzing the evidence threadbare found that the petitioner-accused has failed to make out a case to rebut statutory presumption co
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act must be rebutted by the accused to avoid liability under Section 138.
In a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, once the execution of a cheque is admitted or proven, a presumption under Section 139 arises in favour of the complainant, and the burden shifts to t....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and limited to correcting legal improprieties or perversity in findings; it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence where trial and a....
Dishonour of cheque – When a cheque is issued towards a time-barred debt and is dishonoured, liability under Section 138 of N.I. Act squarely arises.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of liability on the drawer of a cheque under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the accused must provide evidence ....
The presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the N.I. Act does not place the burden on the complainant, but rather requires the accused to provide evidence to rebut it.
The statutory presumptions under Sections 138, 118, and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are critical in dishonour cases, determining the burden of proof.
It is a settled position of law that cheque given as “security” can be enforced under law on failure to make payment of amount borrowed.
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains in favor of the holder unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut it.
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
