Cheque bounce case - onus of proving a loan

proof is must. mere presentation of a cheque is not sufficient to lodge a s/138 complaint. it has to be proved that liability to pay is there, 

Law is blind,& saw only evidence.verbal accuse is not enought ,witness is necessary.

It is very rightly put. That if by chance some dishonest man gets hold of some signed cheque, the drawer is doomed for years to defend himself. 

The law is not like this, the intention of legislature was not this, but the judiciary has messed up this S.138 of NI Act. It is silly that such cases of friendly loan, blank cheque dishonor cases by Banks, signature mismatch, accounts closed 10 years back, all these go on for years.

One of my friend a retired senior judicial officer, became an honorary director of a public limited company, this company got involved into cheque bounce case, and a legal notice was served to this ex judge. He reailsed the implication and adhoc manner in which things are happening under this act. 

i  agree with this statement of all these go on for years. This is practise and we all are aware. No regrets.

being an ex-judge will give no advantage. 

This is a technical law so you have multiple technical defenses also.

SC has held in many cases that the provisions of NI act are legal fiction and hence all of them have to be strictly followed .lapses on the part of complainant are fatal.

Most of the complainants fail to follow many imp requirements and that is why it is always easy for any accused of cheque case to win.

my experience is that the parties settle the matter in general, to avoid technical hardships, but accused to win for technical lapses, is not mostly observed by me.

The person who wish the court to believe in the existence of certain things must prove it with evidence. The onus is on him to convince the court that it exist.

dear member

but there is clear presumption not only under sec 139 but also sec 118 of NI act. it cannot be bye passed by courts.

SC full bench has categorically held that once the signature on cheque is admitted by the drawyer, then the consequences will follow.

of course, if the accused has evidence to rebut the presumptions, he can succeed. he has to show that it is probable that there was no liability.

thanks

yours

v.lakshminarayanan

palani 

All the presumptions are there still legal liability has to be proved.