Back
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
VIKRAM SINGH AANJANA – Appellant
Versus
PRAKASHCHANDRA SOLANKI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.
1. The present revision is filed under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been convicted under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and to deposit Rs. 20,50,730/- as compensation with default stipulation vide judgment dated 9-6-2022 passed by IX ASJ, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2021 affirming the judgment dated 29-9-2021 passed by JMFC, Ujjain in complaint case No. 590/2012.
2. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been challenged mainly on the ground that complainant has failed to prove the transaction between the complainant and the accused. Thus he could not establish existence of legally recoverable debt or other liability in order to establish offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. It is also submitted that in regard to payment of amount, there are material contradictions in the complaint, cross-examination of complainant and other witnesses to establish transaction between the parties. It is also submitted that both the Courts have convicted the applicant only on the ground of presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act without considering that complainant h
The presumption of legally recoverable debt under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut it with evidence, which was not done in this case.
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.
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 complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defe....
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.
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
