Back
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Erfan Timber – Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') is preferred against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamunanagar at Jagdhri in complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter 'NI Act').
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that the applicant-complainant engaged in business of timber with the respondent-accused. In July 2016, the respondent placed an order for fuel wood with the applicant amounting to Rs.1,60,925/- against credit memo/bill no. 05 dated 16.07.2016, no. 06 dated 18.07.2016, no. 07 dated 20.07.2016, no. 08 dated 22.07.2016 and no. 09 dated 25.07.2016. To discharge his liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing no. 353065 dated 17.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. On presentation, the cheque was dishnonoured vide memo dated 18.08.2016 with the remarks- 'Exceeds Arrangement.' Thereafter, a legal notice dated 26.08.2016 was issued to the respondent. Since the respondent failed to make the requisite payment, the present complaint was filed on 15.09.2016.
3. On finding a pr
The accused can rebut the presumptions under the NI Act by providing a satisfactory explanation and pointing towards his innocence by the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, and the accused can rebut the presumption by adducing evidence showing the reasonable ....
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, a....
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 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 presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
The appellate court has the authority to review evidence in acquittal appeals, but must respect the presumption of innocence and ensure that any findings against the accused are based on substantial ....
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.
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
