Back
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Gurdarshan – Appellant
Versus
Raj Rani – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. :- CRM-23423-2019
Application is allowed as prayed for and the delay of 19 days in filing the present application stands condoned.
Main case
1. Instant application has been filed by the applicant under Section 378(4) Cr.PC feeling aggrieved against the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the accused has been acquitted of the charges framed against her.
2. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint filed by the applicant-complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), in the month of April, 2016, she advanced a friendly loan to respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) in the sum of Rs.2 lacs. The accused, to discharge her legal liability, issued a cheque bearing No.000006 dated 02.07.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘cheque in question’) for an amount of Rs.2 lacs drawn at Bank of Baroda, Karnal in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation of the cheque in question by the complainant, it was returned vide return memo dated 05.07.2016 with remarks “Opening Balance Insufficient”. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice dated 19.07.2016 to the accused, h
The presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through credible evidence, which was lacking in this case.
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act rebutted on preponderance of probabilities where cross-examination shows complainant's lack of financial capacity as housewife with unproven remitt....
The complainant must prove financial capacity to lend funds in a dishonoured cheque case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of liability under Section 139 can be rebutted by th....
The presumption of consideration for a cheque does not negate the complainant's burden to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt, which can be rebutted by the accused.
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
The burden of proof in Section 138 NI Act cases shifts to the complainant when the accused challenges their financial capacity, emphasizing that presumption of innocence protects the acquitted party.
The shifting burden of proof, statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the consideration of financial capacity in cases of lending and borrowing.
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
