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>Accused convicted under Section 138 for cheque dishonour after failing to rebut Section 139 presumption</h1> <h3>Sri Raju Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.</h3> Sri Raju Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legally enforceable debt.2. Money lending authority.3. Rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Summary:Legally Enforceable Debt:The petitioner claimed that the respondent issued four cheques totaling Rs. 4,90,000/- to discharge his liability for an interest-free accommodation loan. All cheques were dishonored due to 'Fund Insufficient,' and despite a demand notice, the respondent failed to make the payment, committing an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, stating the debt was not legally enforceable as the complainant did not show the loan in his Income Tax file.Money Lending Authority:The trial court also acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the complainant did not produce any document proving his authority to lend money. The complainant argued that the cheques were issued to discharge an enforceable liability, and the respondent failed to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Rebuttal of Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The complainant provided evidence including the cheques, return memo, deposit slip, demand notice, postal receipt, and acknowledgment of service. The respondent's wife admitted the loan but claimed it was repaid without providing supporting documents. The trial court dismissed the case, stating the loan amount was unaccounted for and not shown in the Income Tax return, making it difficult to hold the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable debt.Conclusion:The High Court cited several precedents, emphasizing that non-filing of Income Tax returns does not disprove the source of income or the enforceability of the debt. The presumption u/s 139 favors the complainant, and the respondent failed to rebut this presumption. The trial court's findings were against the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act and thus not in accordance with law. The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment, convicted the respondent u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 8 lakhs within two months or face imprisonment for six months.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
