Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Presumption Under Section 139 N.I. Act Is Robust: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Dishonour Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of Mamidibattula Suguna in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment, delivered by Justice V. Srinivas, reaffirms the trial and appellate courts’ findings and emphasizes the statutory presumption of debt or liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The court directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.76,000 within one month in lieu of the original three-month imprisonment sentence.

Credibility of Evidence and Presumption Under Section 139 N.I. Act: The court underscored the significance of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which assumes that a cheque is issued for the discharge of a debt or liability unless proven otherwise. “The burden to rebut this presumption lies on the accused, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient,” Justice Srinivas remarked. The court noted that the petitioner, despite being a postgraduate, failed to provide a credible explanation or rebuttal.

Issuance of Cheque and Statutory Notice: The court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the cheque was issued as surety for her husband’s debt. The petitioner admitted to issuing the cheque and receiving the statutory notice but did not respond to the notice. “Non-reply to the statutory notice can lead to an adverse inference against the accused,” the court observed.

Revisional Jurisdiction and Limits of Reappreciation: Justice Srinivas emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating, “The revisional court should not reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings unless there is a manifest error of law or gross injustice.” The court found no such errors in the judgments of the lower courts.

The court referenced key judgments, including ICDS Ltd. V. Beena Shabeer and M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala, to reinforce the principles surrounding cheque dishonour cases. It upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to direct the petitioner to pay compensation instead of serving imprisonment, aligning with the compensatory and restitutive objectives of the N.I. Act.

Justice Srinivas stated, “The presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act is a robust legal tool, placing the onus on the accused to prove the cheque was not for debt or liability. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden.”

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to uphold the statutory provisions of the N.I. Act, particularly the presumption under Section 139. By directing compensation in lieu of imprisonment, the judgment strikes a balance between punitive and compensatory justice. This ruling is expected to serve as a crucial precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the legal framework governing cheque dishonour offences.

Date of Decision:9th May 2024

Mamidibattula Suguna vs. Ganjala Purnachandra Rao and Others

Similar News