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 accused's acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be reversed on the basis of the admitted chitty transaction, issuance of a signed blank cheque, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The admitted chitty relationship between the parties, the issuance of the cheque by the accused, and the absence of a plea or proof of total discharge were treated as significant circumstances. The Court held that once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, the complainant is entitled to the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It further held that a voluntarily issued signed blank cheque does not by itself invalidate the instrument, and the accused cannot avoid liability merely by asserting that particulars were later filled in. The materials on record, including the ledger extract and the failure to produce supporting documents or to send a reply notice, were found sufficient to show that the presumptions were not rebutted.
Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and conviction with sentence of fine as compensation was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance or execution of a cheque is admitted or proved, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise, and a voluntarily issued signed blank cheque remains enforceable unless the accused rebuts those presumptions by credible evidence.