Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.63 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
165. This Court in the above case has examined
Section 139 of the Act. In the above case, the only
defence which was taken by the accused was that
cheque was stolen by the appellant. The said defence
was rejected by the trial court. In paragraph Nos.
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
However, this does not in any way
cast doubt on the correctness of the
decision in that case since it was
based on the specific facts and
circumstances therein. As noted in
the citations, this is of course in
the nature of a rebuttable
presumption and it is open to the
accused to raise a defence wherein
the existence of a legally
25
enforceable debt or liability can be
contested. However, there can be no
doubt that there is an initial
presumption which favours the
complainant.
Kishan Rao vs Shankargouda on 2 July, 2018
4. Learned counsel for the complainant refuting the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant
contends that signature on the cheque having been
admitted by the accused, a presumption has rightly
been raised that cheque was given in discharge of a
debt or liability. The accused has not been able to
prove any probable defence and the High Court has
rightly convicted the accused. No case was taken by
6
the accused that complainant has no other source of
income. Learned counsel for the complainant has
relied on judgment of this Court in Kishan Rao Vs.
Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165.