Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1342 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of NI Act - whether complainant/respondent No. 2 can be said to be holder of a cheque that is received by him in discharge of any debt or other liability as envisaged under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? - HELD THAT:- It is not possible to agree with the submission that presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, does arise in the case on hand or not, cannot be considered by the Court while exercising of powers under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. No absolute rule can be laid down. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The present case is a illustration of need for interference by this Court and quash the proceedings in exercise the powers under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. - it is not possible to say that cheques in the present case is issued in discharge of any liability or debt. Once it is conceded that facts and circumstance of the case dominates and play decisive role, then it would not be difficult to accept the myth of might of presumption under Sec. 139 of the Act. At least in two ways, presumption becomes vulnerable to an attack by other side. One, fact may makes way for the accused and special facts or peculiar fact of the case may hold back the operation of presumption or in peculiar facts of the case, the Court may look into the material brought on record by the accused in support of his say that cheque is not issued in discharge of any debt or liability. In order to prevent injustice, the Court may look into such material - submission about rigours and all pervasive effect of presumption read with limitation of Court under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. is not possible to accept in the circumstances of the case. Petition allowed.
|