Kanwardalip Singh v. Sikander Singh Gill

   
      


   !"

"#$%$ &' (!) *+,-




 


 





 





 

 
 ' ./ 0 1
 21  


 


!
"
#
 


 
$$$ 21  - 0 3 + % 


  


# 
#

#
"




  
  & 
#
' 


(  
(
)
*+,-.

*/0+/*.


 
*12
#
 
)  
3 
!
*22*
4#
 !
5  56 % 
#



7
 
  

 
2!//!///-8 
"

 
 

 
 


 # 
#  


(
% 
 

 # 



 

   
 
   7!
 
 

 '
 
 /./0+0

+/++/*.
  

.!//!///-8
9
 !
   '

  

11+/*.
 
 
 
:#
##  ; #
" 
 
 !
 
  

#  %
 
 
  !
 


 
#
 !

<  
 
 '!

 !
 7
#
 
 
 

   % 
 


#
 
7 
#
.!=/!///-8 


 


 

 

#
 




 





   

 
.!=/!///-8



 







 


 


 ' )
/./0+0

#
3(3(3
>







 
 
 '
  
  
 
7 



<  

 % 


 


  


 
 
#   
 " 
7 
#
.!=/!///-8
#
 
 
? # 


" 

 
7


 
   7


  

#
 
#
 
 ' @

#
 


 
 
 
7 
#

2!//!///-8



 
 

#
 
.!=/!///-8


 !
 



% 
 

 


 
 
# "




 
 
<


 




  # % 


  

   
 
  


 
**2

*10
#
 




 


 
 
 




 



 
 
9

#

  !
 

 #

 


 
% 
  
(

2$4 , 50 / 67 & &8 & !)"3- 9

  :;





"We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a presumption that the issue of a cheque is for consideration. Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act make that abundantly clear. That presumption is, however, rebuttable in nature. What is most important is that the standard of proof required for rebutting any such presumption is not as high as that required of the prosecution. So long as the accused can make his version reasonably probable, the burden of rebutting the presumption would stand discharged. Whether or not it is so in a given case depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case. It is trite that the courts can take into consideration the circumstances appearing in the evidence to determine whether the presumption should be held to be sufficiently rebutted.

The legal position regarding the standard of proof required for rebutting a presumption is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court". In the present case, the respondent was successful in rebutting the presumptions. The fact regarding payment received of Rs.4,50,000/- was withheld by the applicant. The signatures on the receipt are not disputed. Apart from receipt of payment, DW1-Gurmeet Singh supported the defence taken by the respondent that in his presence the payment of Rs.4,50,000/- was made and the applicant promised to return the cheque in question.

9 upon him (i) to establish that Rs.8,00,000/- were given to the respondent, (iii) that in spite of payment receipt of Rs.4,50,000/-, there was any debt due on the date of presentation of the cheque and (iiii) that the payment received Rs.4,50,000/- was for some other transaction and not with regard to Rs.8,00,000/- in question.

The respondent was successful to rebut the presumption against him by exhibiting the receipt and deposition of Gurmeet Singh. The contention that the respondent himself had not stepped into the witness box does not enhance the case of the applicant.

No case is made out for grant of leave, as no legal or factual error, much less perversity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court is plausible reason. The application is dismissed.

Since the application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed on merits, the accompanying application is also disposed of accordingly.

AVNEESH JHINGAN  19th July, 2022
  
-  

B  
  )