Fill in the following details to e-mail
To
Cc
Subject
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> <br /> High Court of Delhi <br /><br /> When signatures on cheques had been admitted, presumption would arise that, cheques had been issued towards some legally enforceable debt<br /><br /> MANU/DE/7071/2023 - (17 Oct 2023)<br /><br /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Satya Pal Dhawan Vs. Anil Kumar</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE"><strong>The instant petition under Section 397 read with Section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking setting aside of judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.Petitioner argues that, both the courts below have failed to appreciate that there did not exist any legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of complainant.<br><br> When the signatures on the cheques had been admitted by the Petitioner, the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) would arise and it would be presumed that the cheques in question had been issued by the Petitioner towards some legally enforceable debt. However, such a presumption can be rebutted by an accused by raising a probable defence. <br><br> The contention of the petitioner that there was no legally recoverable debt has to be supported by material evidence in order to rebut the presumption that the cheques in question had been issued by the petitioner towards some legally enforceable debt.<br><br> Both courts below had rightly noted that in case the accused takes the plea that he had repaid the amount, the entire onus was on the accused to establish that he had repaid the amount to the accused. This Court notes that no cogent evidence has been presented by the Petitioner to discharge this onus. Resultantly, the presumption of Section 139 of NI Act remained unrebutted and accordingly it is to be presumed that the accused had issued the cheque in question qua the repayment of amount of Rs. 1,50,000as claimed by the complainant.<br><br> The Petitioner has failed to establish any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned ASJ vide which the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act as recorded by learned MM was affirmed. Petition dismissed.</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong></strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong>Tags : Cheques, Issuance, Presumption</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <!--<td><strong>Source : <a target="_new" href="http://www.manupatrafast.com/">newsroom.manupatra.com</a></strong></td>--> <td align="left" valign="top"><strong>Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>