Back
N. S. SHEKHAWAT
Jagdish Singh – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal under section 138 contested. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on burden of proof and evidentiary issues. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. presumptions under sections 118 and 139 clarified. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. trial court's findings on evidence & credibility upheld. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. judgment upheld; appeal dismissed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, J.
Challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'the Act'), the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court.
2. The learned trial Court held that the respondent/accused was successful in setting up the defence that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of legal liability and the presumption in favour of the complainant stood effectively rebutted and acquitted the respondent of the notice served upon him.
3. The complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant against the respondent/accused by alleging that the respondent
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The main legal point established is that the failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Dishonour of cheque – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
Presumption under NI Act s.139 rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities by probable defence; mere denial insufficient. Complainant need not prove financial capacity unless challenged in demand no....
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act that cheque is for debt discharge holds unless rebutted by preponderance of probabilities; trial acquittal reversed for perversely ignoring defence witness confir....
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 ....
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
