Section 138 NI Act – Complainant Not Expected To Initially Give Evidence of Financial Capacity Unless Accused Disputes It In Reply Notice: Supreme Court

Section 138 NI Act – Complainant Not Expected To Initially Give Evidence of Financial Capacity Unless Accused Disputes It In Reply Notice

Case: Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant

Coram: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy

Case No.: CrA 362 OF 2022

Court Observation: “At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent the Courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence.”

“We would think that in the totality of facts of this case the appellant has not established a case for interference with the finding of the Courts below that the offence under Section 138 N. I. Act stands committed by the appellant”

Previous Posts

Article 227 – High Court cannot go deep into Factual Issues like an Appellate Body: Supreme Court

States Transfer Policy Must Give Consideration to Importance of Protecting Employees’ Family Life: Supreme Court

Mere Filing Of Representation Before Authorities Does Not Extend Limitation Period: Supreme Court

Clean Service Record of Employee Can Be A Significant Factor In Promotion For A Selection Post: Supreme Court

Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Have The Public Auction Concluded In His Favour: Supreme Court

Cannot Find Favour When Free Speech Is Celebrated – Kerala High Court Quashes Censure against KSEB Cashier For WhatsApp Text Against CM Download Judgement