9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant could be relied upon. In M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani versus State of Kerala and another [2006 (7) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case under Section 138 of the Act held that the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 were rebuttable and the standard of proof required for such rebuttal was “preponderance of probability” and not proof “proved beyond reasonable doubt”. It cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the respondent has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for - appeal dismissed. - Cr. Appeal No. 338 of 2018. - - - Dated:- 3-1-2019 - Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. ORDER The appellant is the complainant, who aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent in the complaint instituted by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act ), has filed the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning Sections 138 to 142 was introduced in the Act by Act 66 of 1988 with the object of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions. These provisions were intended to discourage people from not honouring the commitments by way of payment through cheques. It is for this reason that the Courts should lean in favour of an interpretation which serves the object of the statue. 7. In M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani versus State of Kerala and another (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Hon ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case under Section 138 of the Act held that the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 were rebuttable and the standard of proof required for such rebuttal was preponderance of probability and not proof proved beyond reasonable doubt and it was held as under:- 29. In terms of Section 4 of the Evidence Act whenever it is provided by the Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. The words 'proved' and 'disproved' have been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act (the interpretation c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * * * 34. Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of probabilities ... * * * 45 .. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced .. 10. Earlier to that the Hon ble Supreme Court in Hiten P. Dalal versus Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16 , compared the evidentiary presumptions in favour of the prosecution with the presumption of innocence in the following terms:- 22 ..Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists. 19. The use of the phrase until the contrary is proved in Section 118 of the Act and use of the words unless the contrary is proved in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of may presume and shall presume as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable. When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over. 12. The Hon ble Supreme Court thereafter held that the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but mere denial regarding of existen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. The words proved and disproved have been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 15. Applying the said definitions of proved or disproved to the principle behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the Court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. 16. The standard of proof evidently is preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials on record but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
