Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 139 – Acquittal set aside – Presumption – Complaint of dishonor of cheque – Presumption of discharge of legal liability – Burden of proof – Rebuttal of presumption – Failure to produce evidence – Validity of notice of demand – Quantum of sentence
Acquittal on ground that the accused successfully rebutted this presumption by evidence. The appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in its assessment of evidence and application of law.
The court considered the settled legal position that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act favours the complainant, shifting the burden of proof to the accused. The court highlighted that the complainant need not prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, as this is presumed. Instead, the accused must disprove the existence of such liability.
The accused failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Although the accused presented documents purportedly supporting his version, these were not properly proved, rendering them unreliable. Additionally, the accused’s claim that the cheque was issued as security or filled by another person did not absolve him of liability under Section 138 of the Act.
The court emphasized that the dishonour of the cheque, receipt of a valid notice of demand, and failure of the accused to make payment constituted a clear case against him. The Trial Court’s failure to consider the presumption attached to the cheque and reliance on inadequately proved documents amounted to an erroneous judgment. Acquittal set aside. (Para 15, 19, 27, 34, 37, 41, 52, 54)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 450 HP
[2023 HHC 14647]
Amar Chand Bhutail & Sons Vs. Yash Pal Ranta
Cr. Appeal No. 137 of 2011-Decided on 29-12-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-450-HP.pdf
