Back
ARINDAM LODH
Gautam Saha – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. J. Debbarma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 2. Also, heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.11.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in Case No. CR (NI) 32 of 2018.
3. Briefly stated, what is emanated from the complaint that the respondent No. 2, herein, requested the complainant on 20.05.2018 to provide him a sum of Rs. 2 lakh only as loan. Initially, the complainant was little bit hesitant, but, later on, on further request from the part of respondent No. 2, he paid Rs. 2 lakh to him. The respondent No. 2 assured the complainant that he would return the said amount of money to him within two months from that date. It is the further plea of the complainant that the respondent No. 2 also has given a written declaration on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- (rupees ten) only stating that he would return the amount of Rs. 2 lakh only within two months from the date i.e. from 20.05.2018 in presence of one Sri Ranj
A presumption of enforceable debt exists under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but it can be rebutted; non-production of key evidence can lead to adverse inference against the complain....
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Dishonour of cheque – Where accused has succeeded in rebutting statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he has to be acquitted.
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 of a legally enforceable debt is rebuttable and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this instance.
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 debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
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 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.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
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
