Back
ARINDAM LODH
Uttam Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Subrata Sarkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia in case No. N.I. 07 of 2015, acquitting the respondent no. 1 from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988.
2. The facts of the case, as projected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, are reproduced hereunder:-
"The complainant by way of his complaint lodged his grievances wherein he stated that owing to a good and friendly relation, he gave the accused a loan for an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. It is stated that in discharge of the said liability, the accused provided the complainant a Cheque bearing 648416 dated 04.02.2015 of Tripura State Cooperative Bank, Belonia Branch which was presented by the later before the State Bank of India, Belonia Branch for collections through his account lying with the same. The complainant alleged that on 30.04.2015, the State Bank of India, Belonia Branch returned the said Cheque in favour of the complainant with a Memo stating that the same was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Owing the above, the complainant stat
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted if the accused presents sufficient evidence to create doubt regarding the existence of the debt.
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.
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.
The presumption of cheque issuance for debt under Section 139 can be rebutted, requiring the complainant to prove the existence of a legal enforceable debt for a successful prosecution under Section ....
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 issuance of a cheque carries a presumption of consideration, which is rebuttable by the accused. Failure to prove the non-existence of a debt results in liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Dishonor of cheque - Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding legally enforceable debt is rebuttable; the failure to prove such debt leads to liability under Section 138.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
