{"id":239537,"date":"2020-11-23T16:37:24","date_gmt":"2020-11-23T11:07:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=239537"},"modified":"2020-12-09T21:31:50","modified_gmt":"2020-12-09T16:01:50","slug":"tri-hc-what-is-the-purpose-of-a-serving-a-statutory-notice-under-negotiable-instruments-act-detailed-analysis-of-significance-of-statutory-presumption","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/23\/tri-hc-what-is-the-purpose-of-a-serving-a-statutory-notice-under-negotiable-instruments-act-detailed-analysis-of-significance-of-statutory-presumption\/","title":{"rendered":"Tri HC | What is the purpose of a serving a ‘Statutory Notice’ under Negotiable Instruments Act? Detailed analysis of significance of ‘Statutory Presumption’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tripura High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., highlights the essence of the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, in light of the object of a statutory notice.<\/p>\n

It has been stated that the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent has already established his case under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 against the accused, who is the present petitioner.<\/p>\n

The present petitioner was convicted for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he\/she was penalised for a sentence of 1 year along with a fine of Rs 7,00,000.<\/p>\n

Session Judge had also affirmed the above decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate while reducing the sentence to fine and directing the petitioner to pay only Rs 4,00,000.<\/p>\n

Being aggrieved with the above, the present criminal revision petition was filed.<\/p>\n

Facts<\/span><\/h3>\n

Since both the petitioner and respondent were on good terms and known to each other, the petitioner used to borrow money from the respondents and repay the same in time. On 15-01-2014, he took a loan of Rs 3,50,000 and promised to repay the money within 30-11-2014.<\/p>\n

On being requested for the above-amount, past the said date, petitioner handed over a cheque to the respondent but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Demand Notice was issued with 15 days of time given for the repayment of the said amount. Every time that the postman visited the house for the service of the demand notice, housemates of the petitioner refused to receive the said letter and said that the petitioner was out of station.<\/p>\n

Hence, in view of the above circumstance, the notice was returned to the respondent.<\/p>\n

Later the matter reached the trial and the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act.<\/p>\n

Misutilization of the Cheque<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Petitioner contended in regard to the cheque that the accused had never issued any cheque in discharge of any debt or liability, but only a blank cheque was issued as a security for the loan which was borrowed by him from the complainant and after the loan was repaid, the complainant, instead of returning the cheque, misutilized it against him.<\/p>\n

Statutory Presumption<\/span><\/h4>\n

Respondent’s counsel submitted that the presumption under Section 139<\/a> read with the Rule of Evidence as provided under Section 118, NI Act<\/a> with regard to the existence of debt or liability is not a discretionary presumption, it is a statutory presumption which is obligatory on the part of the Court. Hence, a heavy burden is cast on the accused to rebut such presumption.<\/p>\n

Further, the counsel added that apart from making mere denial of the existence of debt or liability, the accused did not lead any evidence to prove that he had no legal liability to be discharged and as such the courts below had drawn the statutory presumptions against him.<\/p>\n

Section 138 NI Act<\/a> requires proof of the essential ingredients:<\/span><\/h4>\n