Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1075 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt or not - Rebuttal of presumptions - Whether this Court while sitting as a Revisional Court, in the absence of perversity, would upset the concurrent findings of facts? - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that while sitting in a revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-analyze or re-interpret or re-appreciate the evidence on record. It is also to be kept in mind that the Revisional Court will not interfere, even if, a wrong order is passed by the Court having jurisdiction, in the absence of jurisdictional error, as held in the case of SOUTHERN SALES & SERVICES & ORS. VERSUS SAUERMILCH DESIGN & HANDELS GMBH [2008 (10) TMI 696 - SUPREME COURT]. Since the signature on both the cheques is admittedly of the Accused, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of HITEN P. DALAL VERSUS BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE [2001 (7) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT] shall come into effect, wherein it is held that the Court “shall presume” the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn. It is now well settled that Section 139 of the N.I. Act introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on to the Accused. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the Prosecution to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt - The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. The presumption arrived in favour of the Applicant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act has not been rebutted successfully by the Applicant though he entered into the witness box and thus, the findings given by both the Courts below cannot be faulted with. The Revision must fail and hence, the same stands rejected.
|