Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)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
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957
In State of Madras Vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer: AIR 1958
SC 61; it was held that it is obligatory on the Court to raise this
:6:
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".
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee; AIR 2001
Supreme Court 3897; Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
appellant's submission that the cheques were not drawn for the
'discharge in whole or in the part of any debt or other liability's is
answered by the third presumption available to the Banks U/S 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This section provides that "it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, 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." The effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential
burden on the appellant of proving that the cheque was not received
by the Bank towards the discharge of any liability.
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
In K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan; AIR
1999 Supreme Court 3762; it was observed that as the signature
in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the
presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be
inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on
the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on
the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for
the discharge of any debt or liability. The burden is on the accused
to rebut the aforesaid presumption.
1