Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Mukesh Kumar vs Bir Singh on 21 November, 2017
In passing the impugned judgment and
order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir
Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352], the High Court
misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, which mandates that unless
the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed 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.
Needless to mention that the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption.
However, the onus of proving that the cheque was
not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on
the accused drawer of the cheque.
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a
presumption of law, as distinguished from
presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of
evidence and do not conflict with the presumption
of innocence, which requires the prosecution 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 and presumptions of fact unless the accused
adduces evidence showing the reasonable
possibility of the non-existence of the presumed
fact as held in Hiten P. Dalal [Hiten P.
Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16 :
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 151, 211 & 212. Mr Puneet ... on 12 September, 2022
In K.N.Beena v. Muniyappan [K.N.Beena
v. Muniyappan, (2001) 8 SCC 458 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
14] , this Court held that in view of the provisions
of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
read with Section 118 thereof, the Court had to
presume that the cheque had been issued for
discharging a debt or liability. The said presumption
was rebuttable and could be rebutted by the
accused by proving the contrary. But mere denial or
rebuttal by the accused was not enough. The
accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there
was no debt or liability. This Court clearly held that
the High Court had erroneously set aside the
conviction, by proceeding on the basis that
denials/averments in the reply of the accused were
sufficient to shift the burden of proof on the
complainant to prove that the cheque had been
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
"20. This Court held that the accused may
adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but
mere denial regarding existence of debt shall not
serve any purpose. The following was held in para
20: (Sharma Carpets case [Kumar
Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513 :
1