Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Thangaesakki – Appellant
Versus
Sivasami – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the complaint and case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. overview of trial court proceedings. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. details of the arguments presented by the accused. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. presumptions under ni act. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. financial capacity of the complainant. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 , 28) |
| 6. conclusion of the court dismissing the appeal. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.150 of 2023 dated 15.03.2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as 'NI') Act.
2. The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent / accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.
4. The case of the complainant is that the accused and the complainant were school day friends and were belonging to same place. The accused approached the complainant on 02
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act rebutted on preponderance of probabilities where cross-examination shows complainant's lack of financial capacity as housewife with unproven remitt....
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
The failure of the accused to respond to a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act supports the presumption of debt and liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
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 court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
A complainant's debt recovery under the Negotiable Instruments Act relies on established presumptions, rendering the accused's claims of improper notice or lack of financial capacity irrelevant unles....
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
