Back
ARINDAM LODH
Sushil Chandra Paul – Appellant
Versus
Runu Debbarma – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal arises from the Judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khowai, Khowai Judicial District in connection with the case No. N.I. 13 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the accused, respondent No. 1 herein, was acquitted from the charge leveled against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. The facts of the case as projected by the learned trial court, herein, are as under:
i. On 18.05.2016 accused Runu Debbarma took friendly loan for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) in cash from the complainant Sri Sushil Paul in presence of witnesses as he need money for the treatment of his wife outside state on the condition that shortly he would make the payment of the credit since he would avail a loan from bank. At the time of taking the loan the accused put a condition that after three months from the date as per demand of the complainant, the accused would be bound to repay
The presumption that a cheque is issued to discharge a debt requires the complainant to prove the existence of an enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
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....
The issuance of a cheque signifies a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the burden to prove otherwise lies with the accused, not the complainant.
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 cheque issued as security does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of liability can be rebutted by presenting credible....
The judgment established the principle that the presumption of debt and liability under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act can only be rebutted by probabalising a defence, and the standard of proof required is pre....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful rebuttal of the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the failur....
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
