Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
iv) The judgment of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran
Vaidhyan Balan & Anr (supra) is also not applicable as the
same is primarily on the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
Moreover, in that case the accused failed to rebut the
presumptions raised against him whereas, in the present case
the accused has been able to establish that the cheques were
not issued in discharge of any legally recoverable debt or
liability. In fact in the present case the accused has very
categorically denied issuing of cheques in question to the
complainant.
T. Vasanthakumar vs Vijayakumari on 28 April, 2015
i) T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari (supra) the
accused was convicted on the ground that although he had
admitted taking of loan from the complainant yet his defence
was that the said loan was repaid by him to the complainant.
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
ii) Similarly the case law C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty
Muhammed & Anr (supra) is also not applicable in the
present case as the said judgment is basically on the issue of
service of notice.
General Auto Sales vs Vijayalakshmi on 4 August, 2004
iii) Similarly in M/s General Auto Sales Vs.
Rajender Pal Vs. Sanjay Joshi Page No. 20 of 25
Vijayalakshmi (supra) the accused was convicted as the
complainant was able to substantiate his claim by bringing
cogent documentary evidence by showing his ledger book.
Moreover, it had also come on record that there were business
dealings between the complainant and the accused and thus the
accused was convicted.
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
37. Again in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets 2009 II AD
(SC) 117, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that accused in a trial
under section 138 of the Act has two options to rebut the
presumptions. He can either show that consideration and debt did
not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the
non existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a
prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt
existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not
expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is
expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may
adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not
supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to
be discharged by him. However the court need not insist in every
case that the accused should disprove the non existence of
consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the
existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor
contemplated.
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Kamala S vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr on 20 February, 2007
In Kamala S. Vs. Vidyadharan M.J. 2007 III AD (SC)
184, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again held that standard of proof
in discharge of the burden in terms of section 139 of the Act being
of preponderance of probabilities, the inference therefore can be
drawn not only from the material brought on record but also from
the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relied
upon. Categorically stating that the burden of proof on accused is
not so high as that of the prosecution.