9911796707
TMI BlogDishonour of Cheques and the Burden of Proof: Rebutting the Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments ActX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court INTRODUCTION 1. This case deals with the core legal question of whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( NI Act ) regarding the issuance of a cheque towards discharge of a debt or liability can be rebutted by the accused, and if so, the standard of proof required for the same. 2. The factual context involves a cheque issued by the Respondent (accused) to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act. COURT DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS 5. The Court discussed the provisions of Sections 138 , 139, and 140 of the NI Act, which deal with the offence of dishonour of cheques, the presumption in favour of the holder, and the inadmissibility of the defence of lack of reason to believe dishonour, respectively. 6. The Court analyzed the precedents on the presumption u/s 139 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ON 8. The Court concluded that while the Appellant was able to establish the Respondent's signature on the cheque, raising a presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, the Respondent successfully rebutted this presumption through the preponderance of probabilities. 9. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which acquitted the Respondent based on the inability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant contribution to the evolution of criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing the fundamental essence of liberty and the presumption of innocence. 13. The decision highlights the application of the preponderance of probabilities standard in cases involving the rebuttal of the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, providing guidance on the evaluation of evidence and the circumstances in which the presumpt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
