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>Conviction upheld under Section 138 of NI Act for dishonored cheque issuance. Burden of proof on accused.</h1> <h3>Roy Versus Somasundaram, State Of Kerala</h3> Roy Versus Somasundaram, State Of Kerala - TMI Issues:Accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Failure to prove transaction, signature, and execution of cheque - Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act - Accused's defense of misuse of blank cheque - Burden of proof on accused to rebut presumption - Examination of witnesses and documentary evidence - Appellate court's confirmation of conviction and sentence - Revision petition challenging conviction and sentence.Analysis:The accused faced trial for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for allegedly borrowing a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 and issuing a dishonored cheque in discharge of the debt. The trial court found the accused guilty, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine, with the fine amount to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The appellate court upheld this decision. The revision petition challenged these convictions and sentences based on the failure to prove the transaction, signature, and execution of the cheque, disputing the availability of presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.The complainant's case was that the accused borrowed money and issued a cheque in discharge of the debt, supported by witness testimony and documentary evidence. The defense contended that a blank cheque was misused, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to rebut the presumption of consideration under the NI Act. The accused's failure to provide evidence to support the defense plea and the lack of response to legal notices worked against him in establishing the defense's credibility.The court highlighted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the accused must present evidence to disprove the existence of consideration or debt. Citing various legal precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated the importance of proving the non-existence of consideration to shift the burden of proof. The accused's failure to provide substantial evidence to counter the presumption of consideration from the dishonored cheque led to the dismissal of the revision petition.In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The accused was granted three months to deposit the fine amount, with instructions to appear before the court to serve the sentence and pay the fine to the complainant. The court's decision was based on the failure of the accused to rebut the presumptions under the NI Act and the lack of evidence supporting the defense's claims, as established through witness testimony and legal notices.
TaxTMI 