Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.40 seconds)
Shilpa Sharma vs Om Prakash Mishra on 18 October, 2024 cites

Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019

18.The issue to be determined by this court is whether the cheque in question was given by the accused to the complainant against any 'Legal Debt or Other Liability'. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question at the stage of framing of notice and subsequently as well. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in Basilingappa (supra), once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption that the cheque in question was executed in discharge of a debt or other liability gets attracted by virtue of the mandate of Section 139, NI Act. Once the above stated presumption is raised, the onus shifts on the accused to raise a probable defence. The signatures of the accused are not disputed on the cheque in question in the present case. Based on the legal position mentioned, the burden lies on the accused to prove that the cheque in question had not been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Accused was at liberty to rebut these presumptions by way of cross examination of complainant and his witnesses or by leading substantive evidence in defence. It is required that such evidence must be brought in defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'. Presumption must be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 2275 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 Next