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>High Court reverses conviction under Section 138, stresses defense substantiation. Sentence modified, compensation unchanged.</h1> <h3>M. Sivaperumal Versus S. Kamalanathan</h3> M. Sivaperumal Versus S. Kamalanathan - TMI Issues:1. Dispute over a loan and post-dated cheque issuance.2. Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Appeal based on rebuttal of presumption under Sections 118 and 139.4. Legal interpretation of cheque issuance and liability under Section 138.Analysis:1. The appellant claimed that the respondent borrowed a sum and issued a post-dated cheque as security, but it bounced due to insufficient funds. A statutory notice was sent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The Trial Court convicted the respondent based on the prima facie burden of proof by the complainant. The accused failed to rebut the presumption, leading to a sentence of 1-year imprisonment and compensation. The accused appealed to the II Additional Sessions Court, which acquitted him.3. The revision petitioner argued that the Lower Appellate Court ignored the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139. The accused's denial and changing theories were questioned, with emphasis on the importance of proving the debt beyond reasonable doubt.4. The legal counsel for the respondent contended that the complaint was not maintainable under Section 138. The defense raised doubts about the issuance and misuse of the cheque, challenging the complainant's credibility and financial capacity.5. The High Court analyzed the rebuttal presumption under Section 139, emphasizing the need for the accused to substantiate his defense. The court found the accused's actions and explanations lacking credibility, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.6. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Lower Appellate Court's judgment. The sentence was modified due to the prolonged legal process, but the compensation amount remained unchanged. The accused was directed to serve the remaining sentence, with provisions for set off under Section 428 IPC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
