Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 91 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
R. Vijayan vs Baby & Anr on 11 October, 2011
The cheque amount in the present case is Rs.3,80,000/ hence as per
section 138 of the N.I. Act and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled
R.Vijayan Vs. Baby AIR 2012 SC 528 (para 12), this court has the power to
impose fine equivalent to twice the cheque amount which in the present is
Rs.7,60,000/.
Section 114 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
(emphasis supplied)
The judgment titled Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001
Supreme Court 3897(1) discusses the scope and ambit of the presumption raised under
section 139 N.I. Act in the following words :
"The effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential burden on
the accused of proving that the cheque was not received by the
complainant towards the dishcarge of any liability. 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 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 introduced an exception to the
general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the
onus on to the accused. Such a presumption is a presumption of low,
as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes
provisions by which the Court "may presume" a certain state of affairs.
Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the
presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that
the prosecution is obliged 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 or fact unless the
accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the
non existence of the presumed fact."
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
To that extent, the
impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (Supra) may not be
correct. ...............this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption
and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested."