No supportive documents for bounced cheque
Advocate.S.A.Siddiq
(Querist) 29 December 2010
This query is : Resolved
The Online trading company issued cheque to their investor for Sum of Rs. One crore (1 chq 1 investor). No documents in support of investments, and No other suportive documents in favour of cheque , or payment . in this situation 138 case filed against trading company . HOw will this case maintainable ? any judgement in favour of this type of case ? kindly post it..
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 29 December 2010
The offense is rebuttable. It is the headache of the company to rebut the charges.
Complainant need not prove the liability S.118, S.139 NI Act
Citation 1 : (2001) 6 SCC 16 – para 38
Presumption under S.118, S.139 NI Act–Standard of requisite proof for rebuttal
Citation 2 : (2001) 8 SCC 458 – para 6 & 7
Presumption under S.118, S.139 NI Act – accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
Citation 3 : 2000 AIR SCW 609 – para 10 – Deemed offence
….If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied then the person who has drawn the cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence.
SANJAY GUPTA
(Expert) 30 December 2010
yes i agree with Mr.Arunagiri that the burden of proof lies on the accused person to rebutt the presumption u/s 139 n.i.act
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 30 December 2010
Chgeque is with the investors, no company will issue cheque to may of investers without proper consideration. Hence Case is maintainable.
Cheque itself a good document
Guest
(Expert) 30 December 2010
a standard presumption of the proof is sufficient is there in your case. Sec. 114 of evidence act and 118 of the N.I act will help this case.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 30 December 2010
No sir , in criminal cases the benefit of doubt is in favor of accused so unless the liabilities are not proved even case is filed no conviction possible.
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 30 December 2010
AGREED WITH SHASHIKUMAR ONLY.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 30 December 2010
Dear Shri. Shashi Kumarji, Pl enlighten us on the impact of the SC decisions cited by Shri. Arunagiri on the general rule of benefit of doubt. To what extent the general rule is applicable to cases under Sec. 138 of NI Act?
M V Gupta
(Expert) 30 December 2010
Dear Shri. Shashi Kumarji, Pl enlighten us on the impact of the SC decisions cited by Shri. Arunagiri on the general rule of benefit of doubt. To what extent the general rule is applicable to cases under Sec. 138 of NI Act?
ashish lal
(Expert) 30 December 2010
in view of section-118 and 139 NI Act, it is for the accused to rebut
the presumption in respect of the existence of liability and not for the complainant to establish the
liability. (see Rangappa vs S. Mohan, SC 07.05.2010.)
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 08 January 2011
Three bench Judgement of Apex Court Rangappa vs S. Mohan, SC 07.05.2010 is answer. It is the drawer of the cheque to rebut the presumption that there was no liability. Cas e is maintainable.
