On Monday, SC reiterated that mere denial of a debt or liability cannot shift the burden of proof from the accused in a case of dishounor of the cheque.
A bench of Justice A K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan once again made it clear that Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provides for drawing the presumption in favour of holder and a bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused.
The bench reiterated that the apex court has in various cases held that the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but mere denial regarding the existence of debt shall not serve any purpose.
The bench said so while setting aside the judgment of the HC which cleared the man punished for dishonour of cheque by holding that he had been able to create doubt in the mind of the court with regard to the existence of debt/liability even as the accused had led no direct evidence to shift his burden.
