Back
MANINDER S. BHATTI
Ashish Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan – Appellant
Versus
Nitesh Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Nagarmal – Respondent
ORDER :
This application under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.09.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat in Complaint Case No. 3386 of 2014 whereby the respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the trial Court was approached by the present applicant by way of a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act and it was averred in the complaint that a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs was to be recovered from the respondent No.1 and therefore, the respondent No.1 in order to pay the said amount, issued a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs dated 28.03.2013. The said cheque was dishonoured and resultantly the respondent No.1 was liable to be dealt with under Section 138 of N.I. Act. However, the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment concluded that as the present applicant did not clarify towards what debt or liability, the cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs was issued, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the complaint. It is contended by the counsel that under the provisions of Negot
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 complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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 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 – 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 obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish a probable defense against the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The accused must discharge the evidential burden to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and fair and judicious procedure is essential in cases under S....
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
