Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sri Dattatraya VS Sharanappa...
2024 5 Supreme 671 : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the burden of proving that a cheque was not issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability lies on the accused. The accused may rebut the presumption under Section 139 by adducing evidence through either conclusive proof that the cheque was not issued for the presumed debt, or through circumstantial evidence based on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. In cases where the complainant fails to establish a legally enforceable debt and there are contradictions in the evidence, such as conflicting statements about the timing of cheque presentation or lack of financial capacity to advance a loan, the accused can successfully rebut the presumption. The court may find that the weight of evidence has shifted in favor of the accused, leading to acquittal, especially when the complainant''''s case is based on fallacies and contradictions.Checking relevance for N. Vijay Kumar VS Vishwanath Rao N. ...
2025 5 Supreme 300 : Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the execution of a cheque is admitted, there is a rebuttable presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence based on the preponderance of probabilities. The accused is not required to prove the non-existence of debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt, nor is it necessary for them to lead direct evidence; circumstantial evidence or reliance on the complainant''''s own materials may suffice. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. If the accused successfully raises a probable defence creating doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution may fail.Checking relevance for Kumar Exports VS Sharma Carpets...
2009 1 Supreme 231 : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability (Section 139). This presumption shifts the burden to the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued for consideration or in discharge of any debt or liability. The accused can rebut this presumption by adducing evidence—direct, circumstantial, or based on presumptions under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act—that the consideration did not exist or that the debt or liability was not genuine. The burden of proof is not on the accused to disprove beyond reasonable doubt, but to produce evidence that makes the non-existence of consideration or debt probable. If such rebuttal evidence is accepted by the court, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the existence of consideration and liability. Therefore, if the source of the debt or liability is not proved by the complainant, and the accused successfully rebuts the presumption under Section 139, the offence under Section 138 cannot be established.Checking relevance for APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS...
Checking relevance for Hiten P. Dalal VS Bratindranath Banerjee...
2001 5 Supreme 49 : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption that a cheque was drawn for the discharge of a debt or liability is mandatory and must be raised by the court if the factual basis is established. This presumption can only be rebutted by ''''proof'''' and not by a mere plausible explanation. The burden of proof lies on the accused to show that the cheque was not received for the discharge of any liability, and this rebuttal must be supported by evidence that makes the existence of the presumed fact improbable. In the case of Hiren Dalal, the Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to discharge this burden, as his defence lacked any proof and was based on mere denial and uncorroborated explanations. The court emphasized that a bare explanation, even if reasonable, is insufficient to rebut a statutory presumption of law under Section 138 and 139, which require ''''proof'''' of the contrary.Checking relevance for JAIN P. JOSE VS SANTOSH...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1276 : Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to disprove the existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability. The court emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 operates in favor of the holder, and the respondent must prove that the debt was neither due nor payable. In this case, the High Court erred in placing the burden on the appellant to prove the loan was advanced, when the law places the burden on the respondent to rebut the presumption under Section 139.
