Ni act s 138

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 21 October 2011 This query is : Resolved
if person x gave a cheque to person y.cheque got bounced due to insufficient fund.person y has no proof of giving loan to y.after knowing cheque bounce person x offers to give cheque amount to y through relative of y(person z)and friend of z.x accepts his liability of debt verbally in front of z.z talks over phone to x but demand interest also.x denied and told to face trial.x denies liability.y have no documentary proof of hand loan of huge amount Rs 2.5 lacs given to x
is the witness of z(relative of y) and friend of z is sufficient to prove debt liability of x??

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Biswanath Roy (Expert) 21 October 2011
Witness evidence is valid evidence in the eye of law. Absence of documentary evidences shall not nullify the claim.

ajay sethi (Expert) 21 October 2011
inorder to come within ambit of section 138 it is necessary to rpve that debt is due and payable . if x has taken money in cash it will be difficult for him to prove that there is debt due and payable .

there is no acknowledgement in writing .

even if z gives evidence that money was advanced x can always claim that z is tutored witness and z will have to face cross examination .

if only magistarte is satisfied abot the evidence of z will y stand a chance in court .

prabhakar singh (Expert) 21 October 2011
anonymous query has a lot of advantages.

prabhakar singh (Expert) 21 October 2011
you have now twisted the earlier facts ,it appears you do not have a case but digging out to make one??

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 21 October 2011
no sir i m victim of case.i can send factual incidents if u allow me at ur email for suggestion

Shonee Kapoor (Expert) 21 October 2011
Repeated and confusing query, please be clear what you want to know.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Sailesh Kumar Shah (Expert) 21 October 2011
come with full fact with true details.

Arun Kumar Bhagat (Expert) 22 October 2011
The conduct of the complainant is not of a man of reasonable prudence. When such a large amount was given on loan then why no agreement was executed neither money receipt was taken nor any promissory note was obtained. The presumption u/s 139 stands rebutted in view of the above facts and the accused does not need to step into the shoes of the witness to rebut the presumption.
It is the observation of Supreme Court.

Arun Kumar Bhagat (Expert) 22 October 2011
John K. John vs Tom Varghese & Anr on 12 October, 2007
www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1526299/

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries