Crpc

The onus is on the accused to prove, and he is suppose to refute the allegations with proper evidence.

kindly  see apex court order in

Criminal Appeal No.234 of 2007

21-07-2010

N. Narsingarao

Srinivasa Chary and anothers

nothing left to add, see the judgement mentioned above

The cited order is not by Apex Court...

It is now well established that the complainant has to prove the liability reasonably.. Let us not get confused... dishonored cheque...proper time table....and lo behold...accused is doomed.... No it is is not that, to avail the presumption the complainant is required to become the holder, that means he is reasonably required to prove the entitlement, then only onus shifts to accused. If complainant fails to establish his case then presumption stands rebutted. The failure of complainant can be brought forward in cross examination.

No law gives presumption with respect to amount, the presumption is only with respect to the type of liability attached with the case. The accused cannot say that the cheque was issued as gift or for something other liability.. For example an accused can have scooter loan, car loan home loan from the same Bank, if the cheque gets bounced and Bank makes the Car Loan as liability, then accused cannot say, it was issued for Scooter Loan which stands settled. In such case Bank has to prove the amount due on Car Loan, and accused is required either to disprove the amount due for Car Loan or prove that the cheque was given for Scooter Loan..... Hope it is clear.

the order is of ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT rather apex court, but i still stick to my point that the onus is on accused to refute the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard i hereby submit the ruling of Apex court.

K N Beena Vs Muniyappan and Anr 2001 CrLJ 4745

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, "In this case admittedly the Ist respondent has led no evidence except some formal evidence. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the basis that the denials/averments in his reply dated 21.5.1993 were sufficient to shift the burden of proof on to the appellant complainant to prove that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability. This is an entirely erroneous approach. The Ist respondent had to prove in the trial, by leading cogent evidence, that there was no debt or liability.

I agree, this is the most prevalent opinion and stand......Subsequent to above order the Hon Apex Court has very clearly stated that it is impossible to prove the negative...so accused has to just probablise the case...in the cited case, the accused did not bring anything beyond denial in reply notice...we do not know the outcome of cross examination also..

Very recently SC has ruled that the prosecution has to prove the liability reasonably....moreover please note presumption is available to Holder not to possessor and holder is misunderstood as complainant...please read the S.8 of NI Act, so the only when complainant proves that he is holder...he gets the presumption.