Back
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Dinesh Dixit – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Sita Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA-I appearing for the State-respondent.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 25.7.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 3553 of 2014, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) in terms of which the application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to get the hand writing in which the amount and the date had been filled up on the cheque, be referred for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), has been rejected. The subsequent order dated 24.8.2023 whereby the criminal revision filed thereagainst, was dismissed, is also sought to be assailed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the order rejecting the application seeking reference to the FSL by submitting that the signatures of the petitioner had been obtained on the cheque under coercion, and accordingly an application dated 17.7.2023 was submitted for getting the hand writing in which the date and the amount had been filled up on the cheque, verified by the FSL.
4. It is sought to be contended that
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of a cheque being issued for a debt is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to prove otherwise.
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 presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of NI Act is essentially based on pure common sense – Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.....
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of discharge of debt or liabili....
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
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
