Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, 139 – Acquittal upheld – Presumption rebutted – Complaint of dishonor of cheque – Presumption of consideration – Rebuttable presumption – Financial capacity of complainant – Burden of proof – Appeal against dismissal of complaint.
The Trial Court reasoned that the presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. It found merit in the defense’s argument of tampering with the cheque, supported by a handwriting expert’s report. Additionally, the complainant’s financial capacity to lend the amount specified in the cheque was questioned, as it exceeded his admitted income and resources.
Upon examination of the evidence and submissions, the Court emphasized the importance of establishing a probable defense to challenge the presumption of consideration. It cited precedents highlighting the burden on the accused to demonstrate the non-existence of debt or liability, either through direct evidence or circumstantial factors.
Crucially, the Court underscored that the accused need not prove the absence of debt beyond a reasonable doubt but must present a preponderance of probabilities to contest the presumption. It noted that the complainant’s failure to adequately explain his financial capacity undermined the presumption of consideration, as observed in analogous cases.
The Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, deeming it reasonable and in line with established legal principles. It emphasized the Trial Court’s discretion in assessing evidence and declined to intervene merely based on a differing opinion. (Para 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 449 HP
[2023 HHC 14648 = 2024 ACD 198 (HP) = AIROnline 2023 HP 1738]
Amar Dev Verma Vs. M/S Veer Daily Needs & Anr
Cr. Appeal No. 339 of 2014-Decided on 29-12-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-449-HP.pdf
