NDLI: Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1881 Negotiable Instruments Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration:Since the execution of the cheque is, admittedly, not under dispute,the limited question to be considered, is (i) whether the accused canbe said to have discharged his ‘evidential burden’, for the courtsbelow to have concluded that the presumption of law supplied bys.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been rebutted.Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Respondent-accused tried for offence u/s. 138 of NI Act – Trial Courtacquitted respondent – Order of acquittal upheld by the HighCourtHeld: There is a fundamental flaw in the way both the Courtsbelow have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record –Once the presumption u/s. 139 was given effect to, the Courtsought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was,indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability – The entire focuswould then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by theaccused, since the activation of the presumption has the effectof shifting the evidential burden on the accused – The nature ofinquiry would then be to see whether the accused has dischargedhis onus of rebutting the presumption – In the instant case, whenthe courts concluded that the signature had been admitted, theCourt ought to have inquired into either of the two questions(depending on the method in which accused has chosen to rebut thepresumption): Has the accused led any defense evidence to proveand conclusively establish that there existed no debt/liability at thetime of issuance of cheque – In the absence of rebuttal evidencebeing led the inquiry would entail: Has the accused proved thenon-existence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilitiesby referring to the ‘particular circumstances of the case’ – Therewas perversity in the approach of the trial Court as it framed thequestion ‘whether a legally valid and enforceable debt existedqua the complainant and the cheque in question (Ex. CWI/A)was issued in discharge of said liability/debt’ – When the initialframing of the question itself being erroneous, one cannot expectthe outcome to be right – The onus instead of being fixed on theaccused has been fixed on the complainant – The High Court hasalso questioned the want of evidence on part of the complainantin order to support his allegation of having extended loan to theaccused, when it ought to have instead concerned itself with thecase set up by the accused and whether he had discharged hisevidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability atthe time of issuance of cheque – On consideration of the record,the case set up by the accused was riddled with contradictions– Answer of the question (i) is in negative – Consequently, thecomplaint filed u/s. 138 of the NI Act is allowed and respondent-accused convicted. [Paras 55,56,57,62,63]Evidence Act, 1872 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 –Burden of Proof and Presumptions: Conceptual Underpinnings– discussed and elaborated.Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Effect ofPresumption and Shifting of Onus of Proof – discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 888
Petitioner	Rajesh Jain
Respondent	Ajay Singh
SCR	[2023] 13 S.C.R. 788
Judgement Date	2023-10-09
Case Number	3126

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh

Please Log-in to view this content

Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay K. Churiwal

Kapil Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar

K. Prakashan Vs. P.k. Surenderan

Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs. Gulshan Rai

Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda

A.v. Murthy Vs. B.s. Nagabasavanna

Bhupesh Rathod Vs. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr.

Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. Vs. R.b.s. Channabasavaradha

Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh

Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay K. Churiwal

Kapil Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar

K. Prakashan Vs. P.k. Surenderan

Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs. Gulshan Rai

Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda

A.v. Murthy Vs. B.s. Nagabasavanna

Bhupesh Rathod Vs. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr.

Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. Vs. R.b.s. Channabasavaradha

Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh