Presumption U/S 139 NI Act Is Not Absolute & May Be Controverted By Accused: Delhi High Court
The Delhi Excessive Court docket noticed that the presumption below Part 139 of the Negotiable Devices Act, 1881 (NI Act) just isn’t absolute, and could also be controverted by the accused.
The Court docket noticed thus in an Attraction filed in opposition to the Judgment of the Metropolitan Justice of the Peace (MM) by which the accused was acquitted of the offence below Part 138 of NI Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan enunciated, “On the similar time, it is usually pertinent to notice that the presumption below Part 139 of the NI Act just isn’t absolute, and could also be controverted by the accused. In doing so, the accused solely ought to boost a possible defence on a preponderance of possibilities to point out that there existed no debt within the method so pleaded by the complainant in his grievance/ demand discover or the proof. As soon as the accused efficiently raises a possible defence to the satisfaction of the Court docket, his burden is discharged, and the presumption ‘disappears.’ The burden then shifts upon the complainant, who then has to show the existence of such debt as a matter of reality.”
The Bench reiterated that after the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption below Part 118 of the NI Act that the cheque in query was drawn for consideration and the presumption below Part 139 of the NI Act that the holder of the cheque acquired the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or legal responsibility are raised in opposition to the accused.
Advocate Deepak Sharma represented the Appellant whereas APP Sunil Kumar Gautam and Advocate Samridhi Singh represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
As per the Complainant, in 2015, he superior a pleasant mortgage of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Respondent-accused. It was alleged that the identical was duly acknowledged by the accused who executed a promissory word and a receipt within the presence of two witnesses and in addition issued a post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. Allegedly, the stated cheque on presentation acquired dishonoured and returned unpaid vide return memo with remarks “funds inadequate”.
Thereafter, the Complainant despatched a authorized demand discover to the accused. Subsequently, on the failure of the accused to repay the cheque quantity throughout the stipulated interval regardless of the issuance of discover, the Grievance was filed below Part 138 NI Act. The MM acquitted the accused noting that on the time of framing of discover, the accused solely admitted to receiving Rs. 5 lakhs from the Complainant. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the Complainant approached the Excessive Court docket.
Reasoning
The Excessive Court docket after listening to the contentions of the counsel, famous, “It’s pertinent to notice that when it comes to the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court docket in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (supra), as soon as Respondent No. 2 was in a position to elevate a possible defence by both main direct or circumstantial proof to point out that there existed no debt/legal responsibility within the method as pleaded within the grievance/ demand discover/ affidavit proof, the presumption raised in opposition to him “disappeared”. The onus then “shifted” on the petitioner to determine as a matter of incontrovertible fact that there in actual fact existed a debt/legal responsibility, and a failure to take action would culminate within the dismissal of his grievance case.”
The Court docket remarked that even when the Complainant’s case is taken on the highest, but, since accused had already raised a possible defence to dislodge the presumptions raised in opposition to him, the onus shifted to the Complainant to point out that there existed a debt/legal responsibility as on the date showing on the impugned cheque.
“The acquittal of Respondent No. 2 was not premised on whether or not the model of Respondent No. 2 was with out blemish per se or not however on the truth that the petitioner failed to point out that the sum of ₹9,00,000/- as acquired by him pertained to a separate transaction. As soon as Respondent No. 2 had raised a possible defence to the satisfaction of the Court docket, the presumptions below Sections 118(a) or 139 of the NI Act have been not within the favour of the petitioner”, it additional stated.
The Court docket added that the Complainant having failed to guide proof to point out the existence of the debt/legal responsibility, his contentions that there have been contradictions within the model of accused or that the presumptions below Part 118 and 139 of the NI Act have been in his favour, don’t bolster the case of the Complainant.
“It’s pertinent to notice {that a} choice of acquittal fortifies the presumption of innocence of the accused, and the stated choice should not be upset till the appreciation of proof is perverse”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Excessive Court docket dismissed the Attraction.
Trigger Title- Ashok Gaur v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:DHC:5217)
Look:
Appellant: Advocates Deepak Sharma, Saurabh, and Nikunj Sharma.
Respondents: APP Sunil Kumar Gautam, Advocates Samridhi Singh, and A.Ok. Singh.
