Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
10. On going through the said decision, the same
proposition of law has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar
Mukesh Kumar vs Bir Singh on 21 November, 2017
In passing the impugned judgment
and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar
v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352] ,
the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, which
mandates that unless the contrary is proved,
it is to be presumed 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. Needless to mention that the
presumption contemplated under Section 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a
rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of
proving that the cheque was not in discharge
of any debt or other liability is on the accused
drawer of the cheque.
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
of law, as distinguished from presumption of
facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and
do not conflict with the presumption of
innocence, which requires the prosecution to
prove the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The obligation on the
prosecution may be discharged with the help
of presumptions of law and presumptions of
fact unless the accused adduces evidence
showing the reasonable possibility of the non-
existence of the presumed fact as held in
Hiten P. Dalal [Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath
Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16 : 2001 SCC (Cri)
960] .
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant,
complainant got examined himself as PW1. During the
course of cross-examination it has been suggested that the
cheques have been given by the husband of the
petitioner/accused and the said cheques have been
misused by the complainant. The said suggestion has been
-8-
denied, thereby accused admits the signature found at
Exs.P1 and P2. When once the accused admits the
signature on the cheques Exs.P1 and P2, then under such
circumstances the provisions of Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act will come into picture and the
Court is duty bound to draw the presumption that there
exists a legally enforceable debt or a liability. This
presumption is rebuttable in nature and it is given to the
accused to raise the defence, wherein the existence of
legally enforceable debt or a liability can be contested.
Though the accused got himself examined as DW1, in her
evidence no substantial evidence has been brought on
record to rebut the said presumption. When once the said
presumption if it has been rebutted, then under such
circumstances, the case of the complainant stands proved.
This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, wherein at paragraph 16 it
has been observed as under:-
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1