Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.41 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 386 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
L. Mohan vs V. Mohan Naidu on 9 January, 2004
20.1) Trial Court further relied upon law laid down in
2004 (3) KCCR 1816 L.Mohan v/s Mohan Naidu that
"When once the issuance of cheque and the signature on
15
Crl.A.No.2232/2019
its admitted, court has to presume that the cheque has
been issued for discharging the debt or liability. The
burden of proof shifts on the accused to prove that, there
was no liability/debt or that the cheque was issued to a
different person."
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2021
Crl.A.No.2232/2019
20.8) Further in the judgment reported in AIR 2019
Supreme Court 1876 Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v/s State of
Gujarat and another it is observed in para 12 that; the
basic questions to be addressed to are two-fold; as to
whether the complainant-respondent No.2 had
established the ingredients of Section 118 and 139 of the
NI Act, so as to justify drawing of the presumption
envisaged therein; and if so, as to whether the acccused-
appellant had been able to displace such presumption
and to establish a probable defense whereby, the onus
would again shift to the complainant?"
Kishan Rao vs Shankargouda on 2 July, 2018
20.7) In the decision reported in AIR 2018 Supreme
Court 3604 in a case of Krishna Rao v/s Shankargouda it is
held that; "Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881), Ss
138, 139-Dishonour of cheque-Presumption as to-
Acciused issuing cheque of Rs.2 lakhs towards repayment
of loan to complainant-Said cheque dishonoured on
account of insufficiency funds-complainant proving
issuance of cheque having signatures of accused-Accused
failing to rebut presumption raised against him and no
evidence led by him in his support-Acquittal of accused by
High Court in revisional jurisdiction on ground of doubt in
mind of court with regard to existence of loan, improper-
Accused, liable to be convicted."