TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner acquitted in appeal challenging conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Errors found in judgment.</h1> <h3>Pine Product Industries and Ors. Versus R.P. Gupta and Sons and Ors.</h3> The High Court acquitted the petitioner in a revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court ... - Issues involved: Revision petition against judgment under Section 374(3)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Appeal dismissal based on failure to raise defense and rebut presumption.The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge as he failed to raise a probable defense and rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of his liability.Issue 2: Lack of details in complaint and evidence.The complaint lacked details regarding the liabilities and amounts for which the cheque was issued, leading to vagueness and lack of clarity in the case. The evidence presented did not provide clear information on the nature of transactions and liabilities.Issue 3: Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The petitioner argued that the presumption under Section 139 was rebutted, shifting the burden to the complainant to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The courts erred in concluding that the presumption was not rebutted, leading to the petitioner's conviction.Issue 4: Inadequate evidence and lack of proof of legally enforceable debt.Despite opportunities, the petitioner did not present a defense, and the evidence led by the complainant was insufficient to establish a legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant's shifting statements and lack of details in the complaint raised doubts on the case.Conclusion:The High Court held that the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner based on the failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139. As the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt, the petitioner was acquitted and directed to be released from custody.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
