Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.74 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
In an earlier judgment, in fact, which
has also been adverted to in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
[(2019) 5 SCC 418], this Court notes that Section 139 of the
N.I. Act is an example of reverse onus [see Rangappa v. Sri
Mohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441)]. It is also true that this Court
has found that the accused is not expected to discharge an
unduly high standard of proof. It is accordingly that the
principle has developed that all which the accused needs to
establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable
defence has been established is a matter to be decided on
the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and
circumstances that exist."
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
In an earlier judgment, in fact, which
has also been adverted to in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
[(2019) 5 SCC 418], this Court notes that Section 139 of the
N.I. Act is an example of reverse onus [see Rangappa v. Sri
Mohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441)]. It is also true that this Court
has found that the accused is not expected to discharge an
unduly high standard of proof. It is accordingly that the
principle has developed that all which the accused needs to
establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable
defence has been established is a matter to be decided on
the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and
circumstances that exist."
M/S. Aps Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Shakti International Fashion Linkers & ... on 20 April, 2018
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in APS Forex Services Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and others,
reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 has held that the signature
found on the cheque is that of accused and cheque is
issued out of the amount maintained in the bank by the
accused, then presumption arises under section 139 of the
N.I.Act that the cheque was issued towards discharge of
legally enforceable debt and to rebut the presumption, the
accused is required to lead evidence. Then only onus shifts
on the complainant to prove that the cheque is issued
towards legally enforceable debt.
Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant on 7 March, 2022
21. As discussed above the evidence in the cheque
bounce cases are to be appreciated and considered on
theory of preponderance of probabilities and on
presumption of fact as enumerated under Sections 118
and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tedhi Singh
(supra) has laid down the law as follows: