Published on: December 05, 2023 at 12:40 IST
Court: Honourable High Court of Chhattisgarh
Citation: Shiv Kumar V. Ramavtar Agrawal (2016)
Honourable High Court for the State of Chhattisgarh has held presumption available under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has to be rebutted and that rebuttal can only be done after adducing evidence. It is held that rebuttal presumption cannot be looked into at the stage of the court taking cognizance of the offence and registering the case.
23. The presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act has to be rebutted and that rebuttal can only be done after adducing evidence. This, by itself clearly reflects that the rebuttal presumption cannot be looked into at the stage of the court taking cognizance of the offence and registering the case. All that court would have to see is whether there is a prima facie case made out meeting the conditions precedent as envisaged under Section 138 of NI Act, which in the instant case, in the opinion of this court, the respondent has infact been able to establish and fulfill all such ingredients.
32. As has been stated in the preceding paragraphs since there is a presumption to be drawn of there being a debt or liability in part or in whole of the drawer to the holder of the instrument, the court below cannot be said to have faulted upon in taking cognizance and in registering the offence. Since it is a rebuttal presumption and all the contentions and averments made by the counsel for the petitioner being his defence, it would be open for him to raise all these grounds at the stage of leading evidence including the defence of existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. However, there can be no doubt that at the time of filing of complaint there was always initial presumption which would be in favour of the complainant.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
