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 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was unsustainable in view of the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and whether the complainant had proved the essential ingredients of the offence.
Analysis: The cheque, its presentation, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and non-payment within the stipulated period stood established from the evidence and documents on record. The accused admitted the signature and issuance of the cheque and claimed that it was a post-dated security cheque, but led no cogent evidence to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. A bare denial was held insufficient to displace the presumption that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The reasons adopted by the trial court to doubt consideration and the complainant's financial capacity were held to be erroneous because the statutory presumptions operated in the complainant's favour until rebutted by probable defence evidence.
Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a fine with compensation was imposed.