Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1012 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the cheque in question at Exh.46 was signed by the applicant herein. A perusal of cheque shows that the rubber stamp of Suraj Traders has been affixed on the said cheque. There is also no dispute about the fact that the aforesaid cheque finds mention in the registered sale deed dated 17/09/2009, executed in respect of shop premises in favour of wife of the applicant, wherein the applicant has signed as witness to the said document. There is also no dispute about the fact that the said cheque for an amount of ₹ 1,25,000/ was dishonoured and that there was compliance on the part of the non-applicant as regards the service of statutory notice to the applicant. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 138 of the aforesaid Act stood satisfied, pursuant to which the non-applicant filed such complaint against the applicant. Since, there is no dispute about the fact that the applicant had signed on the said cheque, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act came into operation in the present case - The presumptions that arose in full force against the applicant under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act have not been rebutted in any manner by the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Courts below committed an error in convicting and sentencing the applicant. Since no error is found in the concurrent orders of conviction passed by the two Courts below, the present revision application is dismissed. Revision application dismissed.
|