Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside  ||  Ker HC: In Non-Performance of Agreement, Buyer to Get Charge Over Property For Paying Purchase Price  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Reinstate Ayurvedic Doctors Who Haven’t Attained 62 Years of Age  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Accrual Time For Taxing Income to Be Postponed Till Dispute’s Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Distributor Not An Agent But An Independent Contractor  ||  Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics    

Satya Pal Dhawan Vs. Anil Kumar - (High Court of Delhi) (17 Oct 2023)

When signatures on cheques had been admitted, presumption would arise that, cheques had been issued towards some legally enforceable debt



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved