Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 357A in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
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.
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
20. Section 139 introduces an
exception to the general rule as to the
burden of proof and shifts the onus on the
accused. The presumption under Section 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a
presumption of law, as distinguished from
presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules
of evidence and do not conflict with the
presumption of innocence, which requires the
1
(2019) 4 SCC 197
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14874
CRL.A No. 100044 of 2017
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] .
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 151, 211 & 212. Mr Puneet ... on 12 September, 2022
In K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan
[K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan, (2001) 8 SCC
458 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 14] , this Court held
that in view of the provisions of Section 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with
Section 118 thereof, the Court had to
presume that the cheque had been issued for
discharging a debt or liability. The said
presumption was rebuttable and could be
rebutted by the accused by proving the
contrary. But mere denial or rebuttal by the
accused was not enough. The accused had to
prove by cogent evidence that there was no
debt or liability. This Court clearly held that
the High Court had erroneously set aside the
conviction, by proceeding on the basis that
denials/averments in the reply of the
accused were sufficient to shift the burden of
proof on the complainant to prove that the
cheque had been issued for discharge of a
debt or a liability. This was an entirely
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14874
CRL.A No. 100044 of 2017
erroneous approach. The accused had to
prove in the trial by leading cogent evidence
that there was no debt or liability."
1