Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1653 - TRIPURA HIGH COURTDishonour of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of presumption or not - only ground that was taken in the appeal is that two cheques were handed over by the accused-complainant as security to secure the loan for which Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be attracted - HELD THAT:- The basic principle of applying a precedent in the criminal jurisprudence is that the ratio that has been laid down by a particular judgment has to be first construed in the backdrop of its peculiar circumstances. If the facts and circumstances are identical and not subject to distinction then only the principle as laid can be applied. But there can be another way of looking at the precedent is that when the precedent interprets a provision having due regard to the scheme of the Act that can be imported for purpose of applying in the future cases - In this case, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence and the complainant, the respondent No. 1 herein, has proved that he provided the loan much before the cheques were issued. On the face of such evidence it cannot be held that the cheques [Exbt. 1 and 2] were issued for securing the loan. Moreover, when the cheques are admitted by the petitioner issued the court is bound to presume under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I. Act that the cheques were issued for discharging in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The law has developed and now it is no more res integra that under Section 139 of the N.I. Act a statutory presumption which has a evidentiary value can be drawn. In M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [2006 (7) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that once the accused is found to discharge his initial burden, it shifts to the complainant. The petitioner being the accused did not discharge his initial burden in any way and as such there is no infirmity in the finding of conviction. Hence, this court cannot called upon to interfere the impugned judgment - Petition dismissed.
|