Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
In this regard
it is relevant here refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court of India reported in "LAWS (SC) 2019882 in
a case of SRI.DHANESHWARI TRADERS VS.
SANJAY JAIN" and in anther decision reported in
(2020) 12 SCC 500 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that "It is well settled that, rebuttal can be
made with reference to the evidence of
prosecution as well as of defence" and in another
decesion reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case
38 C.C.No. 28118/2017 J
of RANGAPPA VS. SRI.MOHAN wherein it is held
that "ordinarily in cheque bounce cases, what the
courts have considered is whether the
ingredients of the offence enumerated in Sec.138
of Act have been met and if so, whether the
accused was able to rebut the statutory
presumption contemplated by Sec.139 of the Act
and also held that "It is settled position that,
when an accused has to rebut the presumption
u/s.139, the Standard of proof for doing so is
that of preponderance of probabilities". Hence, in
view of the principles of law laid down in the above
referred decisions, the accused in order to rebut the
statutory presumption is not expected to prove his
defence beyond all reasonable doubt and the
accused may adduce direct evidence to prove his
defence or rebuttal can be made with reference to
the evidence of the prosecution and standard of
proof for rebuttal of presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities i.e., something which
is probable has to be brought on record by the
accused. By keeping these principles of law in the
mind now let us examine the oral and documentary
39 C.C.No. 28118/2017 J
evidence adduced by the accused as to whether the
accused has successfully rebutted the statutory
presumptions as against the complainant.
John K Abraham vs Simon C Abraham & Anr on 5 December, 2013
In another decision
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236 in the case of John
K. Abhraham Vs. Simon C.Abraham and
another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that
" In the present case the complainant not aware
of the date when substantiate amount of
Rs.1,50,000/= was advanced by him to the
appellant/accused - respondent/ complainant
64 C.C.No. 28118/2017 J
failed to produce relevant documents in support
of alleged source for advancing money to the
Accused - complainant also not aware as to
when and where the transaction took place for
which the cheque in question was issued to him
by Accused - complainant also not sure as to
who wrote the cheque and making contradictory
statements in this regard in view of said
serious defects/ lacuna in evidence of
complainant, judgment of High Court reversing
acquittal of Accused by trial court, held was
perverse and could not be sustained - acquittal
restored". Hence by applying the said principles of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court to the present
facts of the case are aptly applicable to this case as
in the present case also the complainant has not
stated the date on which the Accused and his father
inlaw were approached him seeking alleged loan of
Rs.4 Lakhs and has not stated the place of issuance
of cheque in question and another cheque to him
and has also not produced the documents to show
that, he has got sufficient source of funds to lend the
65 C.C.No. 28118/2017 J
loan amount to the Accused and the claim set up
by the complainant in the present complaint appears
to be doubtful with regard to lending of loan amount
in question, in such circumstances in view of the
above principles of law laid down by Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka and Apex Court the complainant
has miserably failed to prove that he has lent loan
amount of Rs.4 Lakhs to the fatherinlaw of the
Accused and in turn the Accused has issued the
cheque in question towards the discharge of the said
loan amount and the Accused has rebutted the
presumption available infavour of the complainant.
Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 January, 2014
In view of the principles of law laid down and as
per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs.,
6 C.C.No. 28118/2017 J
Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590,
after recording the plea of the accused, as he
intended to set out his defence, the case was posted
for the complainant evidence.