Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957
"Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall
presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the
amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in State of
Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61, it is obligatory on
the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual
basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It
introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of
proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused"
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the
above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the
principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16,
Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as
follows:
1