Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 269(SS) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 27 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 – Acquittal Set aside – Presumption – Complaint of dishonor of cheque – Burden of proof – Notice of demand – Presumption of delivery of letter – The appeal challenges the trial court’s decision, asserting that the burden shifted to the accused upon admission of his signature on the cheque. The complainant argued that the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability need not be proven by the complainant, as it is presumed under Section 139 of the Act. The accused contended that no interference is warranted with the trial court’s judgment.
Upon examination of evidence, it was found that the complainant had lent money to the accused, who subsequently issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The accused failed to discharge the burden of proving the cheque was issued as a security for a cloth transaction, as claimed. The accused’s mere denial and absence of corroborative evidence were insufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139. Additionally, the accused’s argument regarding violation of Section 269(SS) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed, citing precedents.
The Court held that even if the cheque was issued as security, the accused remained liable under Section 138. The presumption of correctness of a dishonour memo under Section 139 was not rebutted by the accused. The complainant’s notice of demand was deemed delivered under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, and the accused failed to rebut this presumption.
The trial court’s failure to correctly apply the presumption under Section 139 was deemed erroneous. Referring to precedents, the appellate court emphasized the shift of burden to the accused upon admission of signature, critiquing the trial court’s framing of issues. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act. (Para 19, 28, 33, 39, 43, 47, 48, 50, 54, 55)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2024 STPL(Web) 44 HP
[2024 HHC 534]
Satyaveer Singh Vs. Suraj
Cr. Appeal No. 556 of 2016-Decided on 12-01-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-STPLWeb-44-HP.pdf
