Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
14. This proposition of law has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar quoted supra at paragraphs 18, 20, and 24 it has
been observed as under:
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
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.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
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] .
1