Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.65 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee; AIR 2001 Supreme
Court 3897; Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the appellant's submission
that the cheques were not drawn for the 'discharge in whole or in the part of
any debt or other liability's is answered by the third presumption available to
the Banks U/S 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This section provides
that "it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a
cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." The effect of
these presumptions is to place the evidential burden on the appellant of
proving that the cheque was not received by the Bank towards the discharge
of any liability.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957
In State of Madras Vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer: AIR 1958 SC 61; it
was held that it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every
case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been
established. "It introduced an exception to the general rule as to the burden
of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused".
Section 281 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
In K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan ; AIR 1999
Supreme Court 3762; it was observed that as the signature in the cheque is
admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section
118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for
consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act
enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for
the discharge of any debt or liability. The burden is on the accused to rebut
the aforesaid presumption.
1