Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 17 August, 2022 at 16:35 IST
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Versus State Bank Of India And Anr.
The Himachal Pradesh high court has observed that if a drawer of a cheque fails to raise a ‘probable cheque’ or to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or to deny the issuance of the cheque and signatures thereupon, the presumption of cheque holder under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play.
The observation came into force from Justice Sandeep Sharma while hearing a revision petition filed by a cheque drawer, challenging the judgement of conviction passed by the magistrate and its confirmation in appeal.
The cheque holder had alleged that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner to satisfy his legal liability towards a loan.
The court, after pursuing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the trial court had meticulously dealt with each other and every aspect of the matter and despite there being sufficient opportunities, the petitioner-accused failed to repay the amount taken from the complaint as a loan.
The court further observed,
“True, it is that to rebut aforesaid presumption accused can always raise probable defense either by leading some positive evidence or by referring to the material, if any adduced on record by the complainant.”
Thus, according to the above observations, the court found no merit in the case and dismissed it.