Back
KIRTI SINGH
Balaji Trading Company – Appellant
Versus
Koushlander Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ms. Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)
The instant application seeking leave to appeal has been preferred by the complainant/appellant against the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat arising out of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as the 'NI Act, 1881).
2. Briefly stated one complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 by M/s Balaji Trading Company, a proprietorship concern carrying on business of trading in towels through its proprietor Sh. Vishal Singla (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant/appellant') stating that the accused/respondent Koushlander Gupta had purchased towels worth Rs. 18,12,400/- against invoices/bills No. 153 dated 12.11.2012, 154 dated 16.11.2012 and 156 dated 19.11.2012 (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3) and in discharge of the liability, he issued a post dated cheque No. 000023 dated 06.12.2012 (Ex. C-4) for Rs. 18,12,400/- on 19.11.2012 but the cheque was dishonored and returned unpaid to the complainant/appellant on 19.02.2013 with return memo Ex. C-5 bearing remarks 'account closed'. The demand notice (Ex. C-6) was sent to the accused on 23.02.2013 bu
The complainant must prove the sale of goods and the liability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.
The presumption of the existence of a legal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, necessitating the complainant to provide sufficient evidence of such liability.
The court emphasized that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption that cheques are issued for discharging legal liabilities, which the accused must rebut.
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
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 presumption of issuance for repayment under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can be rebutted by the accused with sufficient evidence.
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 presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are in favor of the holder of the cheque, but they are rebuttable. The onus of rebuttal on the respondent is not as heavy....
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
