Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Vunnam Ankaiah – Appellant
Versus
Shriram City Union Finance Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the guilt, conviction and sentence inflicted against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short ‘N.I.Act 1881’).
2. On the complaint of Respondent No.1 herein this revision petitioner was prosecuted in C.C.No.461 of 2005 and after due trial, the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole by a judgment dated 02.02.2006 found him guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and he was further directed to pay Rs.11,662/- as compensation to Respondent No.1 herein in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
3. The convict assailed the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2006. After due hearing afforded to both sides learned V-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole by a judgment dated 14.03.2007 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
4. It is against those convicting judgments of both the Courts below, this revision is filed stating that evidence was improperly appre
Dishonor of cheques issued as repayment of a loan constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheques w....
The court confirmed that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions once the complainant establishes a prima facie case under the N.I. Act.
The judgment of a civil court finding that the cheques were not supported by valid consideration became relevant and binding on the criminal court, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act governs cases of dishonored cheques, requiring robust evidence from the defense to overturn convictions.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption favoring the complainant.
The presumption of debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, and the accused must rebut this presumption, which was not done in this case.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the presumption once the issuance of the cheque is established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
