Skip to main content

NI Act: Burden of proof upon accused if signature on cheque is admitted

In CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2017, Amol @ Jolly Shrichand Kungwani,  vs The State of Maharashtra, while appealing before the High Court of Bombay, the accused submitted that evidence of complainant shows that he is doing money lending business. He has not produced any accounts book to show the loan transaction. Learned trial Court has wrongly recorded its finding that accused has not discharged his burden in respect of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has submitted that the complainant has proved that cheque was issued by the accused.

The High Court referring to judgments in  K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr.,  Shanaz D'Souza Vs. Sheikh Ameer Saheeb and anr., Mahesh Chandaikar Vs. Dattaram S/o Tato Chandaikar and anr. and Nitin s/o Bapurao Mankar Vs. Vyankatesh Housing Agency, Nagpur. decided that the burden is to be discharged by the accused and not by the complainant.  There is no dispute about the signature on the bounced cheque. The complainant has proved that he had given Rs. 50,000/­ to the accused. The complainant also proved the acknowledgment in respect of receipt of Rs. 50,000/­. The acknowledgment on the letterhead of the accused is proved on record. Cheque was dishonoured. Complainant issued notice but said notice was not claimed by the accused. Necessary requirement is proved by the complainant. There is no merit in the revision, hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more