Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the instant case, the Supreme Court has once again reiterated that while dealing with the complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no heavy burden can be placed on the complainant to prove his debt. In the case, the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had failed to prove that the cheque which was dishonoured by the bank was given by the accused to the complainant to discharge in legal liability.
Upon appeal filed by the complainant, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court, reversed the order of the trial court and held that the burden to prove that the cheque in question was issued for some purpose other than discharging legal liability is on the accused. The high court convicted the accused and observed that the cheque was of the account of the accused and the accused has not been able to show that the signature on the cheque is not of the accused. The HC observed that the learned Magistrate has committed an error by dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant.
The Supreme Court bench has affirmed the order of the High Court and held that the High Court has rightly reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and observed that the trial court had committed an error in placing heavy burden on the complainant to prove the debt.
86540
103860
630
114
59824