<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Trial Court Error in Burden of Proof on Negotiable Instruments Act; Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Sets Aside Order.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80617</link>
    <description>Presumption u/ss 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not properly applied by the Trial Court. When presumption u/s 139 is raised, the onus shifts to the accused to rebut it. The Trial Court erred by dissecting the complainant&#039;s case instead of first examining if the accused successfully rebutted the presumption. The Supreme Court in Sumeti Vij case clarified that statement u/s 313 CrPC alone is insufficient for rebuttal. The accused did not lead any defence evidence despite claiming trial. The presumption is based on common sense - acquitting the accused without evidence to rebut it turns the law on its head. The Trial Court&#039;s approach was fundamentally flawed, leading to setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:13:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:13:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Trial Court Error in Burden of Proof on Negotiable Instruments Act; Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Sets Aside Order.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80617</link>
      <description>Presumption u/ss 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not properly applied by the Trial Court. When presumption u/s 139 is raised, the onus shifts to the accused to rebut it. The Trial Court erred by dissecting the complainant&#039;s case instead of first examining if the accused successfully rebutted the presumption. The Supreme Court in Sumeti Vij case clarified that statement u/s 313 CrPC alone is insufficient for rebuttal. The accused did not lead any defence evidence despite claiming trial. The presumption is based on common sense - acquitting the accused without evidence to rebut it turns the law on its head. The Trial Court&#039;s approach was fundamentally flawed, leading to setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:13:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>