Q: Discuss Section 139 of negotiable instrument act ?

Ans: Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The Section 139 states that it will be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the payee received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge, in wholly or partly, of any debt or any liability. 
This presumption is no doubt rebuttable by the accused, by ‘preponderance of probabilities’. So, if the accused can establish a probable defence, that creates a reasonable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, then the prosecution would fail and the accused can do so by only using the materials or evidence presented by the prosecution and in many cases the accused did not need to present another or own evidence.

Virender Kumar vs Sumit on 25 April, 2018

IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET NAGPAL, MM (NI ACT)-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: NEW DELHI.

Section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, lays down that there is no such defence, that the drawer has no reason to believe, when the cheque was issued, that it would be bounced.

In this case, the accused was acquitted and he also  rebutted the presumption of legal liability. It was stated that by pointing out some loopholes in the story or the facts of the complainant, the accused can discharge his burden of proof as well as transfer it to the prosecution by demonstrating preponderance of probabilities.
There can be other defences as well, which depends on case to case. 
x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar V. Aarti on 22 June, 2018 ?

Ans: On the misuse of the provisions for claim maintenance, it is opined by Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018 that it is a matter of deep concern that though the law for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances where the wife focus her husband as like that of an ATM and the beneficial provisions of law are considered to be utilized as a tool of harassment. 
Read more

Question of law:

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...
Read more