Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options.
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...To disprove the presumptions, the accused should
bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of
which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt
did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent
man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea
that they did not exist.3
This has further been elaborated in Rangappa
(supra) holding that:
M/S Hi-Tech Automation vs J.K. Sharma on 9 September, 2014
In the
absence of such evidence, the defence of the accused stands
probablized as held in M/s Hi-Tech Automation vs J.K.Sharma6
wherein the court held as under:
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sachin Food Processo vs Shri.Sanjay T. Tathak (Kulkarni) & Anr on 4 February, 2016
The
accused has placed reliance on M/s Hi-Tech Automation vs
J.K.Sharma 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 17317; Hans Kumar Jain vs
Renu Gandotra MANU/DE/0661/2015; Jalal & Ors vs State of
Goa MANU/MH/2012/2017; M/s Kumar Exports vs M/s Sharma
Carpets AIR 2009 SC 1518; Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (2010) 11
SCC 441; Sachin Food Processor vs Sanjay T. Pathak & Ors
MANU/MH/0631/2016; Veena Rani Chhabra vs Manju Rohida
2008 (155) DLT 447 and Kali Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh
MANU/SC/0121/1973.