A letter to hon supreme court

What is it that you are trying to say through your post, do you want to fight for the cause of the accused against the provisions of 138 and 139 NI act?

It is not the question of accused or complainant. The point is that it appears that S.139 of the NI act is not being rightly interpreted. If you feel that there are some gaps in my argument please let me know.

Not many people are offering any opinion on this subject..??

There is one order from the Hon Apex Court

Vijay vs Laxman & Anr on 7 February, 2013

10. It is undoubtedly true that when a cheque is issued by a person who has signed on the cheque and the complainant reasonably discharges the burden that the cheque had been issued towards a lawful payment........

12. While dealing with the aforesaid two presumptions, learned Judges of this Court in the matter of P. Venugopal vs. Madan P. Sarathi[2] had been pleased to hold that under Sections 139, 118 (a) and 138 of the N.I. Act existence of debt or other liabilities has to be proved in the first instance by the complainant but thereafter the burden of proving to the contrary shifts to the accused....

This is very clear that it is the prosecution which has to prove the liability first, then only complainant gets the presumption. I wonder why this order is not being followed, why the accused is being asked from word go..to disprove the liability ?

This article was put on LCI website article category. It was well received and LCI was kind enough to put the same on their facebook account as well for wide spread awareness.

I once again urge all the learned members and experts to spend some time in reading this albeit lengthy article and come forward with their views, so that this menace called cheque bounce can be arrested.