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 rebuts statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 by proving cheque alteration and partial payment</h1> <h3>P.K. AHAMMED Versus STATE OF KERALA, P.P. SADIQUE SO KUNHABDULLA</h3> P.K. AHAMMED Versus STATE OF KERALA, P.P. SADIQUE SO KUNHABDULLA - TMI Issues Involved: The judgment involves issues related to dishonored cheques, offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, joint trial of cases, material alteration of cheques, statutory presumptions, and burden of proof.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Dishonored Cheques and Offense under Section 138 of NI Act The appellant, a complainant, alleged that the accused borrowed a significant amount and issued two cheques which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act for one cheque but acquitted him for the other. The District Court, in appeal, acquitted the accused for the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act in the first case as well.Issue 2: Joint Trial and Evidence Examination A joint trial was conducted for both cases, with witnesses and exhibits presented from both sides. The trial court acquitted the accused in one case but found him guilty in the other. The District Court reexamined the evidence and acquitted the accused in both cases based on the defense's arguments.Issue 3: Material Alteration of Cheques The defense claimed that the complainant altered one of the cheques, making it unenforceable. The trial court found that the complainant had materially altered a cheque, leading to the acquittal of the accused in one case. The District Court upheld this finding, emphasizing the alteration as a crucial factor in the judgment.Issue 4: Statutory Presumptions and Burden of Proof The judgment discussed the statutory presumptions under the NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut these presumptions. The accused successfully raised a probable defense, shifting the burden to the complainant. The judgment highlighted the standard of proof required to rebut statutory presumptions and emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence in such cases.Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed based on the finding that the accused had succeeded in rebutting the statutory presumptions in favor of the complainant. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence, material alteration of cheques, and the burden of proof in cases involving dishonored cheques under the NI Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
