Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  - Section 138 , Section 139

Dishonour of Cheque - Presumption - Cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused respondent, the presumption under Section 139 would operate - Burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability - Accused has come up with a story that the cheque was given to the complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan; the loan was repaid but the complainant did not return the security Cheque - According to the accused, it was that very cheque used by the complainant to implicate the accused - Cheque was dishonoured because the payment was stopped and not for any other reason - This implies that the accused had knowledge of the cheque being presented to the bank, or else how would the accused have instructed her banker to stop the payment - Date of the cheque was as such 20/05/2024 - Accused in her evidence brought out nothing to prove the debt of 1999 nor disprove the loan taken in 2006 - High Court held to be misplaced in putting the burden of proof on the complainant - As per Section 139, the burden of proof had shifted on the accused which the accused failed to discharge - Impugned order passed by High Court acquitting the respondent liable to be set aside and that of the trial Court and appellate Court convicting the respondent restored.

Topic(s)-Dishonour of Cheque - Presumption - Conviction

Important Decision(s)- 

• Cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused respondent, the presumption under Section 139 would operate.
• Cheque was dishonoured because the payment was stopped - The accused had knowledge of the cheque being presented to the bank.