Cheque Dishonour Cases – What Should Courts Ask Accused Once Presumption Under S.139 NI Act Is Applicable? Supreme Court Explains

Cheque Dishonour Cases – What Should Courts Ask Accused Once Presumption Under S.139 NI Act Is Applicable? Supreme Court Explains

Case: Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh

Coram: Justices Aravind Kumar and SVN Bhatti

Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12802 of 2022

Court Observation: Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption

“Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption ‘disappears’ and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does not again come to the complainant’s rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.”

“The fundamental error in the approach lies in the fact that the High Court has questioned the want of evidence on part of the complainant in order to support his allegation of having extended loan to the accused, when it ought to have instead concerned itself with the case set up by the accused and whether he had discharged his evidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque.”

Previous Posts

CBI’s Enquiry Report Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act, Will Impede Ongoing Investigation Process: Delhi High Court

Land Acquisition | Bombay High Court Directs Over Rs. 1.6 Crore Interest to Landowner As Compensation Not Deposited Before Taking Possession

Courts Should Be Sensitive In Cases Of Crimes Against Women, Ensure Criminals Don’t Escape On Technicalities: Supreme Court

Any Loss Caused To State Corporation Is Loss To Public Exchequer: Supreme Court Directs Lessee To Pay Conversion Charges To KSEDCL

Revenue Authority Must Provide Opportunity Of Hearing Before Passing Adverse Order Against Any Party: Patna High Court

Keywords

Cheque Dishonour Cases