Back
RAJANI DUBEY
Yogendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar Satnami – Respondent
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 24.5.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Complaint Case No.5353/2015 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent/accused being known to the appellant/complainant and there relations being cordial, in April, 2015 he requested the appellant for giving him Rs.1.10 lacs for meeting his personal needs, on which in April, 2015 the appellant/complainant gave him Rs.1.10 lacs on credit. In lieu of discharge of that liability, the respondent/accused gave him a cheque bearing No.520876 dated 4.6.2015 amounting to Rs.1.10 lacs of State Bank of India, Branch-Bhilai with the assurance that on being presented, it would be encashed. However, when the appellant/complainant presented the said cheque for encashment at State Bank of India, Branch-Bhilai where he has an account, it got dishonoured due to insufficient amount in the account of the drawer and returned to the appellant with a memo to this effect. The appellant/complainant then orally informed the res
Dishonour of cheque – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, and the requirement for the accused t....
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act establishes that a cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption with 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.
Dishonour of cheque – Presumption of debt is a rebuttable presumption and onus is on accused to raise probable defence – Standard of proof for rebutting presumption is that of preponderance of probab....
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.
The presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the accused can create doubt regarding the enforceability of the debt without needing to provide evidence.
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
