TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>SC Overrules Madras HC, Reaffirms Burden on Accused Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.</h1> The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the Madras HC's order, which had erroneously permitted the respondent-accused's revision petition in a case under ... Dishonour of Cheque - presumption as regards validity of cheque - seeking a forensic opinion to compare the contents of the cheque with the signature of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Attention drawn to the judgment in Bir Singh [2019 (2) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been observed that even if a blank cheque leaf is voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment would attract the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt, the presumption would hold good. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the accused has signed the cheque. The only dispute is with regard to the age of the ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque. It is found that the application filed by the accused before the trial Court was wholly frivolous and that the trial Court had rightly rejected the said application. The High Court ought not to have allowed the said application and thereby allowed the revision petition of the respondent-accused. Conclusion - i) The age of the ink used in the signature and the contents of the cheque were the only points of contention in the present case. ii) The accused's application before the trial court is found to be frivolous, and the trial court's rejection of the application is deemed appropriate. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal against the order of the Madras High Court in a criminal revision petition related to a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The core legal question revolved around the presumption of validity of a negotiable instrument once it is marked in evidence and the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption. The Court examined the application of Section 139 of the Act in light of the accused seeking a forensic opinion to challenge the validity of a cheque.In the case at hand, the appellant argued that based on the judgment in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, the presumption of validity under Section 139 of the Act applies once a negotiable instrument is marked in evidence. The appellant contended that the accused's attempt to challenge the validity of the cheque by seeking a forensic opinion was unnecessary and contrary to the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.The Court referred to paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 36 of the Bir Singh judgment, which emphasized that the onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 lies with the accused. Even if a blank cheque leaf is signed and handed over by the accused, the presumption of the cheque being issued in discharge of a debt holds unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. The Court highlighted that the age of the ink used in the signature and the contents of the cheque were the only points of contention in the present case.The Court found the accused's application before the trial court to be frivolous, and the trial court's rejection of the application was deemed appropriate. However, the High Court's decision to allow the revision petition of the respondent-accused was considered erroneous. Relying on the principles established in Bir Singh, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. The Magistrate Court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law and expedite the proceedings.In conclusion, the Supreme Court held in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden on the accused to provide evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court's decision reaffirmed the principles laid down in the Bir Singh judgment regarding the validity of negotiable instruments and the accused's responsibility to disprove the presumption of debt discharge.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
