Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M. B. Snehalatha,J
C.V.Sushanth, S/o.Devadas – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Edopana Samithi – Respondent
ORDER :
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.
Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.2227/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kannur and he is the appellant in Crl.A No.101/2012 of Sessions Court, Thalassery. He was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short N.I Act). Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision petition.
2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused.
3. The complainant-the 'Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopanasamithi', Kannur District Committee, represented by its President laid the complaint stating that the accused, who is a member of the said association, availed a financial facility of Rs.3 lakhs from its mutual benefit fund scheme and in discharge of the amount due in the said transaction, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant. Though the complainant presented Ext.P1 cheque for collection, it was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. In spite of receipt of Ext.P4 lawyer notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and thereby committed the offence pu
A cheque issued for a financial obligation creates a rebuttable presumption of debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which the accused failed to contradict.
The court upheld that a dishonored cheque creates a presumption of liability unless adequately rebutted, reinforcing the legal principles under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption of debt, which he failed to do.
The statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unless the accused provides adequate rebuttal evidence, which was not done in this case.
The execution of a cheque is proved, and the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the NI Act stands unless rebutted by the accused, which did not occur in this case.
When a complainant discharges their initial burden under Sections 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, presumptions in their favor come into play, which can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the N.I. Act does not place the burden on the complainant, but rather requires the accused to provide evidence to rebut it.
The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a successful prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the issuance of a cheque remains unless rebutted by the accused, and failure to provide any evidence leads to conviction.
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
