Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the accused disputed receipt of statutory notice and the acknowledgment cards did not bear postal endorsement.
Analysis: The complaint was founded on dishonour of three cheques allegedly issued towards an existing liability. The Court found that the complainant had adduced evidence of dispatch of the statutory notices and that the acknowledgment cards bore signatures matching the admitted signatures of the accused on the cheques, bank instruction letter, bail bonds and vakalatnamas. The denial in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as only a version of the accused and not substantive evidence. The absence of postal stamps or production of original postal receipts did not displace the finding of service where the signatures on the acknowledgment cards were accepted as genuine and the accused had not effectively rebutted the presumption arising in favour of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Conclusion: The Court held that statutory notice had been duly received, the dishonour and liability were proved, and the acquittal was liable to be set aside. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was recorded and compensation was directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Service of statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be proved by acknowledgment and surrounding evidence, and a bare denial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not rebut the presumption in favour of the cheque holder without credible contrary proof.