Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Babul Chandra Bhowmik – Appellant
Versus
Mihir Kanti Baidya – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 against the impugned Judgment dated 19.09.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belonia, South Tripura in N.I. 15 of 2019, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted respondent No.1 for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The brief fact of this case is that based on a complaint filed by the complainant-appellant alleging that he is the owner of a brick kiln and also executes construction works under the Public Works Department of State of Tripura and the accused is also a fellow brick kiln owner having two brick manufacturing units one at Jirania and another at Sekerkote under West Tripura District. In the 1st week of April, 2019 the accused person at the time of sending off his migrant labourers, which were brought from outside of the State of Tripura, approached the complainant to give him a personal loan. Accordingly, the complainant gave the accusedrespondent No.1 Rs. 40,00,000/- from his bank account lying with the State Bank of India, Sabroom Branch. It is also contended that at the time of
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.
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 in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
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 consideration under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove non-existence of debt, which was not done in this case.
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
