Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: rangappa in Rangappa vs . Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 Scc 441 Has Held ... on 22 November, 2022Matching Fragments
Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983, noted at para 23 as follows [Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 referred]:
9. The three-Judge Bench of hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 has held that where the fact of signature on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability, however, this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence.
10. In the present case, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque Ex. CW1/A. In a specific question put to him during his examination under S. 313 Cr.P.C he has stated that the signature on the cheque belongs to him however rest of the particulars written on the body of the cheque such as date, name of payee and amount in words and figures have not been filled by him. Once the factum of signatures on the cheque has been acknowledged, Section 139 presumption becomes applicable and therefore, in this case also, presumption under S.139 will apply and now it is upon the accused to rebut this presumption.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that S. 139 only raises the presumption on fulfillment of its conditions that the cheque was issued for discharge of in whole or in part any debt or other liability but there is no presumption as to the existence of the debt or liabilty as such.
In Rangappa (supra) it has been held that :
Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.