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>Criminal Revision Case Dismissed, Conviction Upheld for Issuing Dishonored Cheque</h1> <h3>R. Soundararajan Versus Ramasamy</h3> R. Soundararajan Versus Ramasamy - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Rebuttal of presumptions by the accused.4. Evidence and burden of proof.Detailed Analysis:1. Legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. This conviction was upheld by the appellate court, leading to the petitioner filing the present Criminal Revision Case.2. Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The court examined Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deal with presumptions in favor of the holder of the cheque. Section 118 presumes that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration, while Section 139 presumes that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or other liability. These presumptions are rebuttable.3. Rebuttal of presumptions by the accused:The petitioner argued that the cheque was issued as security for a previous business transaction and not for a legally enforceable debt. He claimed that he had repaid the earlier loan, but the respondent did not return the cheques and misused them for filing the complaint. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt. The petitioner’s denial and the evidence provided were insufficient to shift the burden of proof back to the complainant.4. Evidence and burden of proof:The court emphasized that the petitioner did not dispute the issuance of the cheque or the signature. Therefore, the presumption was in favor of the respondent that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable liability. The petitioner needed to rebut this presumption through a preponderance of probability, which he failed to do. The oral evidence provided by the petitioner only indicated money transactions between the parties but did not substantiate his claims. The petitioner’s failure to subject himself to cross-examination was also noted as detrimental to his case. The court concluded that the respondent had successfully proved the petitioner’s guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, affirming the judgments of the lower courts. It directed the trial court to secure the petitioner and commit him to prison to serve the remaining sentence. The court also allowed for the possibility of compounding the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the parties reached an agreement. Any amount deposited by the accused was to be disbursed to the complainant or his legal heirs. The registry was instructed to transmit the original records to the respective courts.
TaxTMI 