TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complainant proved commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the judgment of acquittal called for interference.
Issue (i): Whether the complainant proved commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The cheque and dishonour were not in dispute, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant. The accused, however, rebutted that presumption by showing serious doubt about the alleged delivery of the tractor and the existence of the alleged debt. The invoice-cum-delivery challan was found unreliable because it did not sufficiently describe the vehicle, left delivery particulars blank, did not establish receipt by the accused, and did not satisfactorily explain the mismatch between the alleged sale value and cheque amount. The complaint also suffered from a further infirmity because the cheque was in favour of the firm, while the complaint was filed by the complainant in his personal capacity without showing proper institution by the payee or due authorisation.
Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove the legally enforceable debt and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not established.
Issue (ii): Whether the judgment of acquittal called for interference.
Analysis: Once the accused had rebutted the presumption on a preponderance of probability and the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving the debt, the acquittal was supported by valid reasons. The view taken by the Trial Court was correct on the material before it, and no ground for appellate interference was made out.
Conclusion: The acquittal did not warrant interference.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution case was not proved beyond the statutory presumption, and the acquittal of the accused was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the drawer rebuts the statutory presumption by raising a probable defence, the complainant must independently prove the legally enforceable debt and a complaint by or on behalf of the payee must be properly instituted or authorised.
TaxTMI 
