{"id":224055,"date":"2020-01-09T10:00:37","date_gmt":"2020-01-09T04:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=224055"},"modified":"2020-01-22T12:18:15","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T06:48:15","slug":"bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/","title":{"rendered":"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had acquitted the accused of charges under Section 138\u00a0(dishonour of cheque)\u00a0<\/em>of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.<\/p>\n

As per the complainant, she had given a loan of Rs 4.5 lakhs to the accused, for repayment of which, he had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. However, on presenting the cheque for encashment, it was dishonoured. Per contra, the accused took the stand that the cheque in question was given to one Sanjay, who was a former business partner of the accused. The cheque was given to Sanjay to be handed over to a third party to connect with a mutually agreed transaction. However, subsequently, disputes arose between the accused and Sanjay. It was submitted that the Sanjay and complainant were very close friends and lived in the same house. The accused submitted that Sanjay dishonestly handed over the blank cheque in question to the complainant and fraud was being played upon him.<\/p>\n

The High Court perused Section 138\u00a0(dishonour of cheque)\u00a0<\/em>along with its Explanation and noted that the keyword “legally enforceable debt or other liability”. Similarly, discussing Section 139\u00a0(presumption in favour of the holder),\u00a0<\/em>the Court noted that the presumption is rebuttable and the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence.<\/p>\n

The Court then reproduced the principles summarised and enumerated by the Supreme Court in\u00a0Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa,\u00a0<\/em>(2019) 5 SCC 418, and observed that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of the preponderance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. It was also noted as settled law that Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.<\/p>\n

On the factual score, it was found that there was no evidence as to when the amount in question was handed over to the accused. No receipts were produced. Also, there was no evidence to show that the complainant had Rs 4.5 lakhs to give to the accused, and it was also admitted that she was not even paying income tax. Moreover, the fact of the dispute between Sanjay and the accused was also admitted. All this, according to the High Court went on to prove that the accused had raised a probable defence that the complainant had not proved that there was a legally enforceable debt or other liability.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, finding no fault with the order of the trial court, the High Court dismissed the present appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused. [Tasneem Murshedkar Mazhar v. Ramesh,\u00a02020 SCC OnLine Bom 20<\/b><\/a>, decided on 02-01-2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:\u00a0K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had acquitted the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2862,39190,39189,23584,33580],"class_list":["post-224055","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-dishonour_of_cheque","tag-evidentiary-burden","tag-legally-enforceable","tag-section-138-ni-act","tag-section-139-ni-act"],"yoast_head":"\nBom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court:\u00a0K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had acquitted the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-09T04:30:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-01-22T06:48:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-09T04:30:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-22T06:48:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan","og_description":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had acquitted the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-09T04:30:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-01-22T06:48:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/","name":"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2020-01-09T04:30:37+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-22T06:48:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":258158,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/","url_meta":{"origin":224055,"position":0},"title":"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. CMM, convicted a person who presented a cheque to repay a loan but the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Instant complaint was filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal procedure against the accused of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257091,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/15\/dishonour-of-cheques-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":224055,"position":1},"title":"Dishonour of Cheque | Not filling details in cheque, Non-filing of ITR by complainant, Handing over cheque as security, etc.: Delhi Court discards all defence, orders conviction under S. 138 NI Act \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Saket Courts, Delhi: Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate (South) NI Act, convicted the accused for an offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. While delivering the judgment, the Court reiterated the well-settled position of law and discarded various defence taken by the accused. Factual Matrix\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Saket Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258443,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/14\/scc-snippets-dishonour-of-cheque-principles-relating-to-presumption-under-section-139-ni-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":224055,"position":2},"title":"SCC Snippets| Dishonour of Cheque: Principles relating to presumption under Section 139 NI Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and KM Joseph, JJ, in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019)\u00a05\u00a0SCC\u00a0418, lucidly summarized the following principles relating to the presumption arising in law when a cheque is issue: \u201c25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":304445,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/12\/explained-supreme-court-verdict-principles-of-presumption-evidential-burden-under-ni-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":224055,"position":3},"title":"Explained | Supreme Court verdict on principles relating to presumption and evidential burden under Ss. 138 & 139 of NI Act","author":"Apoorva","date":"October 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe accused has miserably failed to discharge his evidential burden, that fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Section 138 NI Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266804,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/13\/law-on-liability-of-guarantor-dishonour-of-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":224055,"position":4},"title":"Liability of Guarantor for Cheque Dishonour: Can lender enforce his right against either principal borrower or his guarantor? Dwarka Courts answers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Dwarka Courts, Delhi: Rahul Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter regarding dishonour of cheque, held that mere assertion of non-receipt of legal notice cannot help the accused in escaping liability under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was alleged in complaint that accused had approached the complainant to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255796,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/dishonour-of-cheque-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":224055,"position":5},"title":"Mere denial is useless, Presumption under S. 138 NI Act can be rebutted only by leading cogent evidence: Court holds accused guilty where “payment stopped by drawer”","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 18, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Saket Courts, New Delhi: Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate reiterated what is expected of an accused to rebut the statutory presumption against him in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Brief facts Complainant and accused had entered into an agreement to sell the property\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Saket Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224055","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224055"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224055\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224055"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224055"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224055"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}