Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 87 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan vs V. Radhakrishnan on 6 April, 1998
(4) In Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan 1998 Cri LJ 3228 wherein the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held when a cheque is issued for valid consideration, with no dispute regarding the signature, amount and name, it cannot be said that putting a date on the cheque by the payee who is the holder of the cheque in due course would amount to material alteration rendering the instrument void. In fact, there is no material alteration. When a cheque is admittedly issued with blank date, and when the payee has no objection with regard to the name, amount and signature, it can be presumed that there is an implied consent for putting the date as and when required by the beneficiary, and get it encashed. In other words, when the date is put by the payee, or the drawer on the cheque the presumptions under Section 118 of the Act would arise. The burden is, therefore, entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the payee had no authority to put the date and encash the cheque. It is further held therein that when the drawer issued cheque as security for loan transaction and there is no dispute regarding the signature, amount and name shown in the cheque, it can be presumed that the cheque was supported by consideration.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Taher N. Khambati vs Vinayak Enterprises And Ors. on 30 August, 1994
The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the facts of the decision of this Court reported in Shri Taher N. Khambati's case (supra) are exactly similar to the facts of this case and therefore the said decision is very much applicable to the case on hand and that the law laid down therein still holds good and that the facts of the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the complainant are entirely different from the facts of this case and therefore those decisions cannot be applied to the facts of this case.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan And Another on 18 October, 2001
18. Coming to the cited decision in K. N. Beena's case 2001 Cri LJ 4745 (supra), there cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law laid down therein that the burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for any debt or liability is on the accused. In that case, the appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act as the cheque dated 6th April, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 63,720/- issued by the accused was dishonoured with the remarks 'insufficient funds' and the appellant issued legal notice and in spite of notice, the cheque amount was not paid but a reply was given. The trial Court convicted the accused and directed the accused to pay fine of Rs. 65,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The accused challenged the conviction by way of appeal before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction. The accused then preferred revision before the High Court of Madras, which set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused on the ground that the appellant had not proved that the cheque dated 6th April, 1993 had been issued for any debt or liability. Then the complainant approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court held that the High Court erroneously proceeded on the basis that the burden of proving consideration for a dishonoured cheque is on the complainant and that the High Court lost sight of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and that the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for debt or liability is on the accused. The Apex Court further observed that however the said presumption is rebuttal presumption. Even Section 139 of the Act also clearly shows that the presumption is a rebuttal presumption. Here in the instant case, the accused proved contra from the documents filed by the complainant himself that by the date of issuance of the cheque there was no existing debt or liability and that those cheques were taken as security for future liability. Therefore, this decision also does not come to the aid of the complainant in this case.