Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
P.Parthasarathy – Appellant
Versus
R.Sundari – Respondent
ORDER :
M.Nirmal Kumar, J.
The Criminal Revision Case is filed against order dated 14.08.2023, passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2022, confirming the Judgment and Conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruvallur in S.T.C.No.19 of 2021, dated 28.11.2022.
2.The gist of the case is that the Petitioner / Accused and the Respondent / Complainant are friendly neighbours. On 28.01.2018, the Petitioner borrowed a hand loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the respondent by executing a promissory note to replay the amount with 12% interest per annum and a issued post dated cheque, dated 18.12.2020, bearing No.114593, for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, drawn on Canara Bank Kotturpuram Chennai. On 18.12.2020, when the respondent presented the cheque in Indian Bank, Thiruninravur Branch for encashment, it was returned as “Funds Insufficient” vide Challan, date 19.12.2020. The Respondent issued a legal Notice dated 26.12.2020 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner refused to receive the same.
3. Mr.T.Sivagananasambandan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit that t
The presumption of consideration in cheque transactions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, places the burden on the accused to disprove the validity of the cheque.
The accused may rebut statutory presumptions of liability in cheque dishonor cases; once done, burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the case effectively.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable liability for the cheque issued.
The appellant failed to establish the existence of a loan to support the cheque under Section 138, and once the accused probablized his defence, the evidential burden shifted back to the complainant.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The appellate court must affirm acquittals unless demonstrated misconduct or perverse conclusions arise, as rights of the accused and statutory presumptions demand careful scrutiny.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be issued for discharging a debt, which the accused must reb....
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
