- Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes that if the execution of a cheque is admitted, it was issued to discharge a debt or liability.
- This presumption is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to raise a probable defense using a preponderance of probabilities.
- The accused can rely on their evidence or materials submitted by the complainant to rebut the presumption.
- The accused is not required to testify in support of their defense; Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden, not a persuasive one.
- Interference in an order of acquittal can occur if the trial court's judgment is found to be “perverse” or against the weight of evidence.
- In cases involving Sections 138 and 139:
- The expression “shall presume” in Section 118(a) is not synonymous with conclusive proof.
- A probable defense can be raised without disproving consideration directly, and evidence from the complainant can be relied upon.
- The accused may use existing evidence to discharge their burden of proof.
- The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while the defense requires a “preponderance of probabilities.”
- Admitting the signature on the cheque raises a presumption under Section 139, and the focus is on whether a probable defense was raised by the accused.
- In matters of financial capacity, the complainant must explain if questioned, but negative evidence is not necessary.
- Contradictions in the complainant's statements can lead to the case being quashed.
- PLRonline ID 3315205
- Full Judgment with detailed headnotes for Online Subscribers (opens automatically) (Click to subscribe Trial Pack)
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
[SC] NIA S. 138 – The accused can rely on their evidence or materials submitted by the complainant to rebut the presumption – Proof of financial capacity – Contradictions in the complainant’s statements can lead to the case being quashed.
0
