Financial capacity – During cross-examination, when financial capacity to pay Rs.6 lakhs to the accused was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant -- Evidence on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts – Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Financial capacity – It was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity -- Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Rebuttal of presumption – Payee may fill up the amount and other particulars, this in itself would not invalidate the cheque -- Onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence -- Subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption – Onus to rebut the presumption u/s 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Legal enforceable liability -- Money lending license – Appeal against acquittal – From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Evidence required against accused – In the cases of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act, the complainant is not required to prove the case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, nor it is the requirement of law, like in other criminal trials dealing with the offences under the IPC -- By leading his evidence on the facts available on record, complainant is required to make out a prima facie case of cheque bouncing against the accused -- Thus, it is an exception to the general rule -- Thereafter, onus would shift and the accused would have to rebut the statutory presumption against him, by bringing on record cogent evidence in his defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.04.2015

Legally enforceable liability – Provisions of the N.I.Act lay down that initially, the complainant has to prove the existence of debt and other liabilities and thereafter the burden shifts upon the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of a lawful debt but was issued by way of security or any other reason on account of some business transaction or was obtained unlawfully.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015