Understanding Burden of Proof in Cheque Bounce Cases: Insights from a Landmark Judgment

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Act, 1881 , concerning a cheque bounce. The primary legal issues revolve around the discharge of debt/liability through a cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the burden of proof in such cases. Key aspects of the case include: Factual Background : The case involves a financial transaction where the appellant claims to have lent money to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of evidence required to establish or rebut the presumption of a debt/liability concerning a dishonored cheque. ​​​​​​​The Presumption Under Section 139 Section 139 of the Act provides a presumption in favor of the holder of a dishonored cheque. This presumption is that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The onus is in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tements and the lack of substantial evidence to support his claims. The Court concludes that the accused's defense is not credible, lacking in evidence, and fails to rebut the presumption under Section 139 . The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and convicting the respondent. In essence, this case illustrates the intricate dynamics of burden of proof .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X