Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

— Ss. 118(a) and 138 & 139 — Presumption under, that negotiable instrument was drawn for ``consideration'' — Held, court has to presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless the existence of consideration is disproved — That is unless on consideration of matter before it the court either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist — Meaning of words ``proved'' and ``disproved'' as defined under the Evidence Act, applied in this regard, (2006) 6 SCC 39-A

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

— Ss. 118(a), 139 & 138 — Dishonour of cheque, a negotiable instrument — Presumptions under Ss. 118 and 139 as to issuance of the said instrument for consideration and in discharge of debt — Raising of — Rebuttal thereof — Burden of proof — Nature of said proof — Held, initial burden of proof is on accused to rebut the said presumptions by raising a probable defence — If he discharges the said burden, the onus thereafter shifts on to the complainant to prove his case — Whether the initial burden has been discharged by accused is a question of fact — Burden of proof on accused is not heavy — He need not disprove the prosecution case in its entirety — He can discharge its burden on the basis of preponderance of probabilities through direct or circumstantial evidence — For said purpose, he can also rely upon evidence adduced by complainant — Appellant P doing share transactions through R (complainant), a sharebroker — Dishonour of cheque issued by P in favour of R due to insufficient funds in account — Complaint filed under S. 138 alleging that cheque was issued towards amount due to R in relation to share transactions — Defence taken that said cheque was given to R by way of loan to tide over his financial difficulties — Held, evidence adduced by parties showed that P succeeded in discharging his initial burden which then shifted to R who failed to discharge the same — Adverse inferences drawn against R due to non-production of his statutory books of accounts in relation to transactions in question, itself sufficient to rebut presumption under S. 118 — Therefore, conviction of P under S. 138, held, not sustainable, (2006) 6 SCC 39-B

Evidence Act, 1872

— Ss. 101 to 103 — Onus of proof on accused, held, is not as heavy as that of the prosecution — Such onus compared with that of a defendant in civil proceeding, (2006) 6 SCC 39-C

Evidence Act, 1872

— Ss. 114 Ill. (g) & 34 — Withholding of relevant evidence — Adverse inference — Dishonour of cheque, which was issued to a sharebroker (complainant) — Allegation of complainant that cheque was issued to clear debt in relation to share transactions — Complainant not producing before court his statutory books of accounts in respect of said transactions — In this view, held, adverse inferences could be drawn against him, (2006) 6 SCC 39-D

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

— Ss. 139, 118(a) & 138 — Cheque issued to complainant sharebroker in share dealing — Presumption under the NI Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt — Rebuttal of — Defence of accused that he issued the cheque in question by way of security and not towards any amount due to the complainant in share transactions — Held on facts, the said defence was acceptable as probable — In this regard, practice prevailing in the said business taken note of — Thus, the said cheque could not be said to have been issued in discharge of debt — Hence, the same would not come within the purview of S. 138, (2006) 6 SCC 39-E

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— S. 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Power of appellate court to interfere — Where two views possible, held, appellate court should not interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by court below, (2006) 6 SCC 39-F

Evidence Act, 1872

— Ss. 4, 114, 79 to 90-A, 111-A, 112, 113-A, 113-B and 114-A — Presumptions — Meaning and value of — Held, a presumption is a legal or factual assumption drawn from the existence of certain facts — Presumptions are raised in terms of the Evidence Act — Presumption raised under a statute has only an evidentiary value — Presumption drawn in respect of one fact may be an evidence even for the purpose of drawing presumption under another, (2006) 6 SCC 39-G

Practice and Procedure

Costs

— Direction made to complainant for payment of — Where conviction under Negotiable Instruments Act not sustainable, complainant directed to pay and bear the costs of the accused — Counsel's fee assessed at Rs 10,000, (2006) 6 SCC 39-H