Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Acquittal | To Raise Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act, Signature on Cheque and Legally Enforceable Debt Need To Be Proved: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court’s decision focused on the pivotal legal point involving the presumption of a legally enforceable debt in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This presumption arises when the issuance of a cheque and receipt of money in the respondent’s account are established. The onus then shifts to the accused to disprove the presumption. However, in this case, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court and the First Appellate Court that the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption, and the petitioner failed to establish a legally enforceable debt.

Facts and Issues of the Case: The petitioner, M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises, a partnership firm, alleged that the respondent, Kavita Saraff, issued cheques that were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, purportedly for financial assistance provided to her. The Trial Court convicted the respondent, but both the First Appellate Court and the High Court acquitted her, finding no conclusive evidence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether these findings were perverse or lacked evidence, and if there was a substantial legal question warranting its intervention.

Burden of Proof: The court acknowledged that in cheque dishonour cases, the burden shifts to the accused once the cheque’s issuance and receipt of money are established. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly held that the respondent rebutted the presumption effectively.

Analysis of Acquittal: Interference with acquittal is limited under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court found no perversity or lack of evidence in the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and High Court.

Evidence of Financial Transactions: The petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence proving the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims and found the respondent’s defense plausible.

Applicable Legal Principles: The court considered relevant legal principles and precedents but found them adequately addressed in the judgments of the lower courts.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the decisions of the High Courand the First Appellate Court. It held that there was no substantial point of law that required interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2024.

M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises Vs. Kavita Saraff and Another

Similar News