Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (1.41 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
40. The decision in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel's
case (referred supra) will not help the complainant's
case and evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred
to its earlier decision Rangappa's case (supra) and
summarized the principles regarding presumption
under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act and also
referred the decision of Kumar Exports vs. Sharma
60
Carpets reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513. It is evident
from the principles stated in the said decision that
initial presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the
want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or
accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds
are not of relevant consideration while examining as to
whether the accused has been able to rebut the
presumption or not. But in view of factual matrix of
this case which are peculiar facts, evidence and
circumstances of this case, the nature of the admission
made by the complainant and defence evidence of
accused, the said principle has no application to this
case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para-16 clearly
held that the word relating to the preponderance of
probabilities that the accused has to bring on record
such facts and such circumstances which may lead the
Court to conclude that either that the consideration did
not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that
61
a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the
case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not
exist and mere denial of the case will not be sufficient to
discharge the burden. But here if the evidence of
complainant and accused are considered it is evident
that the accused has discharged the onus on him. But
complainant failed to discharge onus shifted on him.
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the
62
principles regarding presumption arising under Section
139 of the Act by referring its earlier decision in
Kumar's case (supra). In those cases the accused has
not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption and
cross-examination prosecution is not sufficient to rebut
the presumption. But here the evidence, both in
examination-in-chief and cross examination of
complainant coupled with rebuttal evidence adduced by
the accused clearly indicates that the presumption of
consideration has been rebutted by the respondent-
accused even on the basis of the evidence laid by the
complainant alone. Apart from it the complainant has
not denied defence evidence which is probable defence
of accused. The accused has lead legally admissible
defence evidence to rebut presumption if any in favour
of complainant.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2020
In other judgment reported as
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat and
Another this Court held as under : (SCC paras,
15, 17 & 22)
"15. So far the question of existence of
basic ingredients for drawing of
presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of
the NI Act is concerned, apparent it is that
the appellant-accused could not deny his
signature on the cheques in question that
had been drawn in favour of the
complainant on a bank account maintained
by the accused for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs
each. The said cheques were presented to
the Bank concerned within the period of
their validity and were returned unpaid for
the reason of either the balance being
insufficient or the account being closed. All
the basic ingredients of Section 138 as also
18
of Sections 118 and 139 are apparent on the
face of the record. The Trial Court had also
consciously taken note of these facts and
had drawn the requisite presumption.
Therefore, it is required to be presumed
that the cheques in question were drawn
for consideration and the holder of the
cheques i.e., the complainant received the
same in discharge of an existing debt. The
onus, therefore, shifts on the appellant-
accused to establish a probable defence so
as to rebut such a presumption."
Veerayya vs G K Madivalar on 30 November, 2011
33. Admittedly, the complainant has filed a Civil
suit in O.S.No.1/2012. As submitted by the counsel for
the accused, the said suit came to be dismissed. This is
not disputed by complainant's side. This High Court in
52
decision reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057 in the case of
Veerayya vs. G.K.Madivalar held at para-20 as under: