Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

GENERAL OVERVIEW

  • This judgement is in relation to the case: Sumeti Vij v. M/S Paramount Tech Fab Industries, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 29233/2019.
  • The Supreme Court affirms again that the burden of proof falls on the accused to prove that cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

FURTHER DETAILS

The appellant Sumeti VIJ purchased non woven fabric from M/s Paramount Tech FAB industries in its factory at Moginand. In place thereof, the appellant issued two cheques from her account of the Punjab National Bank, Karnal- in order to meet the legal existing and enforceable liabilities. The cheques on presentation were returned from Punjab National Bank, Karnal with a note of “insufficient funds” in the account of the appellant.  Soon after, two legal notices were sent by the complainant to the appellant but she did not respond to the notices nor did she make any payment in furtherance within the statutory period. Hence, two separate complaints were filed by the complainant­ respondent under Section 138 of the Act against the appellant­ and accused.

CURRENT SCENARIO

Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed- “ The prosecution has to prove the case and these cases being quasi criminal in nature are to be proved on the basis of the principles of “preponderance of probabilities”, and not on the principles as being examined in the criminal case to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the given circumstances, the High Court, in our view, has not committed any error in recording the finding of guilt of the appellant and convicting her for an offence being committed under Section 138 of the Act under its impugned judgment, which in our considered view, needs no further interference. Consequently, the appeals are without any substance, and are accordingly dismissed.”

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THIS DECISION? LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS AND VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!
 

"Loved reading this piece by Nandini Warrier?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  94  Report



Comments
img