Court Failed to Apply Section 139 Presumption Favoring Complainant in Cheque Dishonor Case, Wrongly Shifting Burden of Proof.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - The Court below has materially erred in not properly appreciating and considering the presumption in favour of complainant-appellant herein that there exists a legally enforceable subsisting debt or liability as per Section 139 of the Act. Further, it is relevant to note here that the trial Court has committed a serious error in shifting the burden of proof to prove the debt or liability and the existence of a debt without appreciating the mandate of legislation as laid down in Section 139 of the Act. Section 139 of the Act is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore once issuance of cheque has been admitted and signature on the cheque has been admitted and in this case transaction of loan is also admitted. There is always a presumption in favour of appellant-complainant - HC....