9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Validity of the cheque issued by the accused. 3. Material alteration of the cheque under section 87 of the Act. 4. Presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Act. 5. Burden of proof and evidence presented by the accused. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had obtained a hire purchase facility and issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to the criminal complaint. The court below found the accused not guilty, prompting the appeal. 2. The appellant argued that a presumption under section 139 of the Act should have been drawn in their favor regarding the cheque issued by the accused. The accused contended that the cheque was altered without her consent, rendering it void under section 87 of the Act. The definition of a valid cheque under the Act was examined, emphasizing the necessity of certainty in specifying the amount and payee. 3. The defense argued that the subsequent alteration of the cheque without the drawer's consent constituted a material alteration under section 87 of the Act. Legal precedents were cited to define material alterations, highlighting the impact on the legal position of the parties involved. The court considered previous judgments to determine the validity of alterations in negotiable instruments. 4. The presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the Act was discussed, noting that it is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies with the accused. Evidence presented by the accused, including witness testimonies and bank statements, aimed to discredit the appellant's claims. The court evaluated the credibility of the evidence to determine if the presumption under the Act was rebutted. 5. The court found the evidence presented by the accused to be reliable and convincing, leading to the acceptance of the defense's contention. The court upheld the acquittal of the accused under section 138 of the Act based on the preponderance of probability and the rebuttal of the presumptions under sections 118 and 139. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the court below's decision.
|
