High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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