MANIK LODH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is statutory or legal presumption? How does the statutory presumption differ from natural presumption or presumption of fact? How statutory or legal presumption can be discharged by an accused? What is the standard of proof required, in a criminal trial, to discharge a legal or statutory presumption? Can statutory or legal presumption be taken to have been discharged by an accused probalises his defence by giving reasonable explanation as regards the evidence appearing against him? Whether prosecution of a drawer of a cheque, for dishonour of the cheque on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer, is permissible if, between the date of the issue of the cheque and the date of presentation thereof to the bank for payment, a part of the amount, for which the cheque has been drawn, is paid to, and received by, the drawee? These are some of the prominent questions, which the present revision has thrown up for determination.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 12. 9. 01, passed, in Crl. Appeal No. 54 (M)/2000, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, dismissing the appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and order, dated 22. 08. 2000, passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st class, Nagaon, in CR Case No. 2150/96, whereby the accused-petitioner stood convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with the merit of the present revision petition, it is necessary to take note of the material facts, which have given rise to the present revision petition.