The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Sri Dattatraya Versus Sharanappa (07-08-2024) has upheld the acquittal of accused in cheue dishonour case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 on account of the inability of the complainant to put forth the details of the loan advanced, and his contradictory statements even though the complainant was able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was of the accused.
1. The Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to earlier judgement in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148 has held that an accused may establish non-existence of a debt or liability either through conclusive evidence that the concerned cheque was not issued towards the presumed debt or liability, or through adduction of circumstantial evidence vide standard of preponderance of probabilities.
2. The Hon'ble Court observed that there was no financial capacity or acknowledgement in his Income Tax Returns by the Appellant to the effect of having advanced a loan to the Respondent. Even further the Appellant has not been able to showcase as to when the said loan was advanced in favour of the Respondent nor has he been able to explain as to how cheque landed in the hands of the instant holder.
3. The Hon'ble Court also clarified that since the accused has been able to cast a shadow of doubt on the case presented by the complainant, he has therefore successfully rebutted the presumption stipulated by Section 139 of the NI Act 1881.
(2024) 8 JGC 5
No comments:
Post a Comment