TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Court below on 08.08.2017 to complete the remaining sentence imposed by the Court below. If the applicant has deposited any money in furtherance to the direction issued by the appellate Court or by this Court, same be released to the respondent upon furnishing certified copy of this order. The applicant is further directed to deposit the remaining money, if any, on or before 08.08.2017, failing which the default stipulation indicated in judgment dated 06.08.2015 shall be enforced. - Criminal Revision No. 523/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2017 - S. K. Awasthi, J. Shri Tapendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Anvesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent ORDER The applicant is assailing the order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- from the applicant. Despite receiving the legal notice, the applicant did not obey the instructions therein which gave rise to liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882. 3. The respondent filed a complaint case before the competent Court which was registered as criminal Case No. 14/2015 in which the applicant was summoned to face the trial and to come forward with his defence. The respondent recorded his statement in support of the complaint and was subjected to cross-examination by the applicant. After completion of the process, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri pronounced judgment dated 06.08.2015 and arrived at a finding that the applicant is liable to suffer the consequences provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant of his liability to prove the compliance of steps prescribed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned counsel for the applicant laid much emphasis on the defence version of the applicant that the money reflecting in cheque No. 130879 could not have been advanced by the respondent who does not have financial capacity to advance such a huge amount. Therefore, he submitted that the judgments which are called in question are perverse and deserves to be set aside. 6. In reply to the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Courts below have not committed any error in appreciation of evidence and have correctly arrived to the finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in the following terms:- 35. A statutory presumption has an evidentiary value. The question as to whether the presumption whether stood rebutted or not, must, therefore, be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. For the said purpose, stepping into the witness box by the appellant is not imperative. In a case of this nature, where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. 36. In M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani v. State of Kerala and Another [(2006) 6 SCC 39], it was held that once the accused is found to discharge his initial burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... believe. 39. In K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan [2007 (12) SCALE 96], this Court following M.S. Narayana Menon (supra) opined: 12. The Act raises two presumptions; firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) therein and, secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. Presumptions both under Sections 118 (a) and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Having regard to the definition of terms proved and disproved as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as also the nature of the said burden upon the prosecution vis-`-vis an accused it is not necessary that the accused must st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41. Mr. Bhat relied upon a decision of this Court in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee[(2001) 6 SCC 16] wherein this Court held: 22. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter, all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. 23. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the court but to draw the statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
