Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy

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