Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sections 118 & 139—Presumption—Rebuttal—Legal principles regarding nature of presumptions to be drawn and manner in which they can be rebutted by an accused—Discussed.
[Paras 19 to 28]
Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act—Rebuttal—Accused need not enter the witness box to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt—Standard of proof on the accused, in such cases, is mere “preponderance of probabilities”—An accused can show the preponderance of probabilities by way of direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or presumption of facts under Section 114 of the Evidence Act or he may choose to rely upon the case set out by the complainant or the evidence adduced by him during the trial—Prosecution fails, if accused succeed to raise the defence, sufficient to create a doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt—It is also incumbent upon complainant to prove his source of income, in case it is questioned by the accused during the trial.
[Para 49 to 51]
Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Appeal against acquittal—Cheque issued by accused allegedly towards repayment of borrowed amount from complainant—Presumption of legally enforceable debt—Respondent accused not only asserted that cheque in question was signed and issued by him in connection with a land deal which is not materialize but he produced defence evidence in support thereof—Failure on part of complainant to specify the date of advancement of loan, goes to the root of the complainant’s case—Even the complainant failed to produce his ITR to substantiate the loan—No illegality or impropriety muchless perversity found in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 34, 40 & 51]