006 (44 )AIC700 (S.C. ), AIR2006 SC 3366 , AIR2006 SC 3366 , 2006 (2 )ALD(Cri)317 , 2006 (55 ) ACC 994 , 2007 (1 )ALT(Cri)103 , III (2006 )BC433 , III (2006 )BC433 (SC ), 2006 (3 ) CCC 129 (SC ), III (2006 )CCR76 (SC ), [2006 ]132 CompCas450 (SC ), (2006 )6 CompLJ39 (SC ), (2006 )6 CompLJ39 (SC ), 2006 CriLJ4607 , 2006 (3 )Crimes117 (SC ), 2006 (3 )CTC730 , 2006 INSC 384 , JT2006 (6 )SC 72 , 2006 (3 )KLT404 (SC ), 2006 -2 -LW(Crl)918 , 2006 (5 )MhLj676 , 2006 (5 )MhLJ676 (SC), 2006 MPLJ97 (SC), 2006 (3 )RCR(Criminal)504 , RLW2006 (4 )SC 2945 , 2006 (6 )SCALE393 , (2006 )6 SCC39 , [2006 ]Supp(3 )SCR124 , 2006 (2 )UC1289 , ,MANU/SC/2881/2006S.B. Sinha#P.P. Naolekar#21040SC3500Judgment/OrderACR#AIC#AIR#AIR#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALT (Criminal)#BC#BC#CCC#CCR#CompCas#CompLJ#CompLJ#CriLJ#Crimes#CTC#INSC#JT#KLT#LW(Criminal)#MANU#MhLJ#MhLJ#MPLJ#RCR (Criminal)#RLW#SCALE#SCC#SCR(Supp)#UCS.B. Sinha,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Reverse burden,Burden and standard of proof,Title and extent of operation of the Code,Introduction,May presume under Evidence Act,May presume under Evidence Act,Burden of proof.,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Law of Evidence,Indian Penal Code25842,25843,25817,15579,15578,16342 -->

MANU/SC/2881/2006

True Court CopyTM EnglishUC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 1999

Decided On: 04.07.2006

Appellants: M.S. Narayana Menon Vs. Respondent: State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. The Second Respondent was a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. The Appellant used to carry on transactions in shares through the Second Respondent in the said Stock Exchange. They have been on business terms for some time. A complaint petition was filed on 19.11.1992 by the Second Respondent herein against the Appellant purported to be for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act"), on the following allegations:

2. The Second Respondent had been carrying on business of stock and share brokers under the name and style of "Midhu and Midhun's Co.". It is a sole proprietary concern. The Appellant also used to do transactions in shares through him in his capacity as a share broker. It has not been disputed that the Appellant had closed the account and, thus, when the cheque in question being dated 31.7.1992 (Ex. P-1) drawn on Ernakulam Banerji Road branch of the Syndicate Bank, was presented for encashment by the complainant through his bankers, namely, the Cochin Stock Exchange Extension Counter of the Syndicate Bank, it was returned on 4.8.1982 with the remarks "account closed".

3. Allegedly, a sum of Rs. 3,00,033/- was, thus, owing and due to him from the Appellant in relation to the said transactions. The Appellant is said to have paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- in cash and issue........