Mariadasan S/O. Gnanaprakasam vs Mohanan S/O. Kuttan Pillai on 3 November, 2023
P.Sreerangan v. S. Sivasankar reported in (2021) 1 LW (Cri) 450
– wherein this Court has held that “in as much as Ex.P.7 was marked by the
complainant himself, I am of the view that the contents of the said reply
notice can very well be taken note of by the Court. The specific stand of the
complainant is that he had no money dealings with the said Deivasigamani
at any point of time” and further held that “it is true that the accused is
obliged to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. But then, the standard cast on the accused is only
preponderance of probability and not beyond any reasonable doubt. It is
only for the complainant to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt”.
18/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.176 of 2019
But in the case on hand, the complainant was examined as PW1 and he
categorically deposed about the borrowal of amount by the accused,
issuance of cheque, signature found in the cheque and thereby, the accused,
somehow, denied the allegations levelled in the notice issued by the
complainant by way of his reply notice itself is not sufficient to prove the
case of the accused. Therefore, the above said case law will not be
applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.