Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Hari Chand Sant Dass – Appellant
Versus
Manpreet Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Vashisth, J.)
This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 23.01.2009, passed by the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (for brevity `Ld. Trial Court'), in a complaint case bearing No.RT-152/01.03.07/06.11.2008, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short `NI Act'), whereby, respondent (accused) was acquitted.
2. In the complaint case filed before Ld. Trial Court, it was alleged that accused had purchased diesel from appellant in the month of 2006, for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, and in discharge of his liability, a cheque bearing No.789210, dated 13.01.2007, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Ropar, in favour of the complainant (appellant herein) was issued. On presentation of said cheque in the Bank, same was received back dishonoured vide memo dated 13.01.2007, with remarks "insufficient funds".
After covering all the legal steps, a complaint bearing No.RT-152/01.03.07/06.11.2008, under Section 138 of NI Act, was instituted by the complainant.
3. After recording the preliminary evidence, accused (respondent herein), vide order dated 01.03.2007, was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of NI Act. Afte
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.
Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act based on reliable forensic evidence disproving accused's signature on cheque, as presumption under Sections 118 and 139 re....
The presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's signature is established, it is presumed to be issued for a debt, shifting the burden to the....
The burden of proof under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies on the accused to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or liability.
The prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act requires proof of insufficient funds, which was not established in this case, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused.
Dishonour of cheque – Where accused has succeeded in rebutting statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he has to be acquitted.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
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
