Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
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]
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
We are in agreement with the respondent
claimant that the presumption mandated by
Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
To that extent, the impugned observations in
Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be
correct.
Jose Kurian vs P.V.Joy on 19 July, 2012
In a similar case, Jose Vs. P.C. Joy 2008 (4) RCR (Crl)
251( Kerala HC), it was submitted by the accused that the
CC No.11/11 RAKESH GUPTA Vs. RAJPAL page no. 8 of Pages 11
cheque in question was given by the accused to the complainant
as a security. Though the liability was settled as evidenced by
Ex. D1 & Ex. D1(a) the cheque was not returned, inspite of
requests. Therefore a stop memo was issued to the bank by the
accused. He also gave a criminal complaint against the
complainant which was taken on file as C.M.P 281/01 ( Ex. D2).
Section 281 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
V.S.Yadav vs Reena on 21 September, 2010
13. It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena 172(2010) DLT 561 that the offence
u/s 138 NI Act is a technical offence and the complainant is only
supposed to prove that the cheques issued by the respondent
were dishonored, his statement that cheques were issued against
liability or debt is sufficient proof of the debt or liability and the
onus shifts to the respondent / accused to show the
circumstances under which the cheques came to be issued and
this could be proved by the respondent only by way of evidence
and not by leading no evidence. It was further observed that in
order to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, the
accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance
under which the cheques were issued. It was for the accused to
prove if no loan was taken why he did not write a letter to the
complainant for return of the cheques.
1