NDLI: Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	cheque for repayment of the loan s.138 and 139 burden of proof 1881 Negotiable Instruments Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:s.138 and 139 – Dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds– Conviction by trial Court as well as appellate court – In Revision,High Court reversing the concurrent factual finding of courts below and acquitting the accused holding that heavy burden was on the complainant to prove that blank cheque was given to him towards repayment of the loan which he had advanced to the accused – On appeal, Supreme Court held: Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused i.e drawer of cheque – Section 139 is a presumption of law as distinguished from presumption of facts – Presumption contemplated u/s. 139 is rebuttable presumption – A reading of ss.20, 87 and 139 makes it amply clear that a person who signs the cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption – It was not the case of the accused that the cheque was signed under threat or coercion or that the cheque was stolen – Existence of fiduciary relationship between the payee of the cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of presumption u/s. 139 in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion – High Court ought not have acquitted the accused – Conviction affirmed –Evidence – Presumption.s.138 – Object of – Held: Object of s.138 is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments and to encourage and promote their use.Chapter XVII – Object of – Held: The object of Chapter XVII is both punitive as also compensatory and restitutive – It provides a single forum and single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability and for enforcement of civil liability. Evidence:Presumption – Presumption of innocence is a human right –However, the guilt may be established by recourse to presumption is in law and presumptions in facts unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of non-existence of presumed facts.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Revisional jurisdiction – Scope of – Held: In exercise of Revisional jurisdiction, High Court cannot upset concurrent factual findings, in absence of perversity – It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.Constitution of India:Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of – In appeal against acquittal – Held: If two views are possible, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.136 would ordinarily not interfere with judgment of acquittal.Precedent:A judgement is a precedent for the issue which is raised and decided – What is binding on all courts is what Supreme Court says u/Art. 141 of the Constitution and not what it does u/Art. 142 –Constitution of India – Arts. 141 and 142.Allowing the appeals, the Court
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 149
Petitioner	Bir Singh
Respondent	Mukesh Kumar
SCR	[2019] 2 S.C.R. 24
Judgement Date	2019-02-06
Case Number	230

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

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar

Please Log-in to view this content

Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan & Anr.

M/s. Shree Daneshwari Traders Vs. Sanjay Jain and Another

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari

Ramdas S/o Khelunaik Vs. Krishnanand S/o Vishnu Naik.

Modi Cements Ltd. Vs. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi

T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari

P.j. Agro Tech Limited & Ors. Vs. Water Base Limited

Suku Vs. Jagdish & Anr.

Vinay Kumar Shailendra Vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and Anr.

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan & Anr.

M/s. Shree Daneshwari Traders Vs. Sanjay Jain and Another

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari

Ramdas S/o Khelunaik Vs. Krishnanand S/o Vishnu Naik.

Modi Cements Ltd. Vs. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi

T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari

P.j. Agro Tech Limited & Ors. Vs. Water Base Limited

Suku Vs. Jagdish & Anr.

Vinay Kumar Shailendra Vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and Anr.

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar