138 negotiable instruments act
salilkumarp
(Querist) 13 September 2008
This query is : Resolved
whether source of income is relevant in 138 NI act ?
whether it is the burden of complainant to prove that he had sufficient income to lend to the accused ?
any rulings in this respect ?
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 13 September 2008
in my opinion yes,
pls refer to a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as:
Krishna Janardan Bhat versus Dattatraya G.Hegde Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2006 decided on 11.1.2008
reported as 2008(1) RCR (criminal) 695
if u dont ve access to this reporter then download this judgment from www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
by filling the above mentioned Criminal Appeal No.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 14 September 2008
In 138 cases one has to prove several mandatory facts for eg. the issue of cheque, the debt due, the bouncing for no satisfactory reasons, furthe demand of money, no payment. When the issue of cheque is questioned the party has to give evidence. When no souc=rce is a defence soiurce has to be proved. But we have to understand one thing unending impractical and unreasonable defeneces are not now a part of the legal day to day frame work. Some thing is assuered all ways when one has issued a cheque. It is certian that there was a financial transaction. Then how far source is important is question on facts.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 14 September 2008
In 138 cases one has to prove several mandatory facts for eg. the issue of cheque, the debt due, the bouncing for no satisfactory reasons, furthe demand of money, no payment. When the issue of cheque is questioned the party has to give evidence. When no souc=rce is a defence soiurce has to be proved. But we have to understand one thing unending impractical and unreasonable defeneces are not now a part of the legal day to day frame work. Some thing is assuered all ways when one has issued a cheque. It is certian that there was a financial transaction. Then how far source is important is question on facts.
Aniruddha.P.Pawse
(Expert) 14 September 2008
Your Transaction of chq bouncing should be legal.The wording itself says legal liability.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 14 September 2008
The wordings used in section 138 is "for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability". It simply means that there should be a liability for which the cheque is given. To check the financial status of a person is one way to check probability of genuineness of the alleged liability. So it is never desired that there is "burden of complainant to prove that he had sufficient income to lend to the accused". He is to prove that the cheque was for consideration and it can be proved by so many facts.
sanjay kumar patibandla
(Expert) 16 September 2008
Yes source of income should be matched. The debt must be the "legal enforceable debt".
but we should not forget "Burden to prove non-consideration is on accused"
RASIK DAGLI
(Expert) 16 September 2008
when a cheque is issued, consideration is presumed. The burden is on accused to prove that there was no consideration.The source of income is not relavent.
SANJAY DIXIT
(Expert) 21 September 2008
Yes, the source of income of complainant would not relevant U/s 138 NIAct.
