Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Apu Ranjan Debnath – Appellant
Versus
Dipankar Majumder – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC, 1973 against the Judgment & Order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal no.42(3) of 2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 Sri Dipankar Majumder was allowed setting aside the judgment of the CJM in Case No.CR(NI) 70 of 2016 convicting the respondent No.1 to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay of Rs.6,00,000/- i.e to suffer simple imprisonment for further period of 6 months for commission of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the CR (NI) 70 of 2016. The brief fact of the complainant's case is that the accused Sri Apu Ranjan Debnath had friendly relation with the complainant Sri Apu Ranjan Debnath and had taken Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant with a promise to repay the same very shortly and on 08.06.2015 the accused issued the cheque vide no.445340 in favour of the complainant to discharge his debt and liability and on the same date the complainant deposited the said cheque in his account vide no.8070012400541 lying in the Tripura Gramin Bank, U
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt is significant; an accused must substantiate any rebuttal with cr....
In dishonored cheque cases under the N.I. Act, the presumption of debt arises upon dishonor, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence.
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....
Point of Law : Jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice.
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....
The presumptions under sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act favor the holder, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the claims of liability.
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.
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
