Negotiable Instruments Act; Ss. 118(a), 138 and 139:
Dishonour of a Cheque-Complaint-Notice-Trial Court found accused share-broker guilty of committing offence under Section 138 of the Act--Reversed by the first Appellate Court-Appeal against allowed by High Court, on appeal, Held: A member of Stock Exchange is required to maintain books of accounts in a particular manner-The accused did not maintain statutory books of account in terms of bye-laws of the Stock Exchange and also did not produce the same before the Court-The Cheque in question was allegedly issued by the accused in discharge of his debt-Thus, liability arose in terms of that transaction-Under the circumstances, accused required only to discharge initial onus of proof, he need not require to disprove the case of the prosecution-Onus on the accused is not as heavy as that on the prosecution--Evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court concludes that the accused had discharged his initial burden but the complainant had not been able to prove his case-The accused clearly stated that the Cheque was issued by him by way of security and not in discharge of debt-The statement accepted as probable-Thus the Cheque in question cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of the debt-Hence, provisions of Section 138 of the Act not attracted-Evidence Act, 1872--Ss. 3 and 4 .
Jurisdiction of High Court:
Revisional/Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court-Exercise of- Discussed