Amrik Singh v. Deepak Kumar
!"#$$%
&' $$$ ( ) (( * ''
&&
$$$ ' "+ ( $ ''
(
'
(,
!"#$%& ' '
( !)
) # +
, ' ( ( ( - .
( !# /
, ($00&
* ( 2 .
That about years back accused met with complainant and accused told to complainant that he is sending various youths to abroad. The complainant shows his interest to send his son Gurpreet Singh and one of his relatives namely Harmesh Singh resident of Attari, Tehsil and Distt Amritsar to abroad for this purpose, accused received a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant and in order to partially discharge his legal debt and liability the accused had issued the cheque in question in favour of complainant but the cheque of the accused was dishonoured by the banker of accused with the remarks "Account Closed" and the accused did not make the payment even despite service of legal notice making it evident that the case against the accused has been duly proved as such, the accused may be punished under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. !
, ( ( ' ( (
(
(
, ( !# / , ## ' ( - 3(( - 4 ( !5/ , ## ( ( ( 3 ( ( 6 (
% 6
, ( ( ( ' 3 - - 3 ( 8 ( 3( 3 (3 1,8 7* *9
* 9 %*)!% ,' ( 1 ( :( ( 3 ( 3 ( ( (8 )) :
( , ' .
3 3 3(
4 2 ' in case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan 2010(4) Law Herald (SC) 2296 has held that when an accused has to rebut the presumption raised under section139 of Negotiable Instruments Act the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities'. So, the contention raised by the the accused have to be examined in light of aforementioned presumptions in favour of the complainant and law regarding standard of proof laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment.
- ( ( :
( 3 , .
9 , 3
! 3 ' 3 - , - ( ; (
- ' 3 3 " < ( ' !)
) # ' 3 ( 3
4 - ' 3- ' ,' .
3 3 3 (
.
( !5/ , ## - # !"#$%& ' '
=(
$'
(- #$$% "