Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Karri Sridhar Reddy S/o Ramakrishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Kolli Antarvedhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant against the Judgment dated 30.04.2008 passed in CC No.7 of 2007 (old CC No.612 of 2006) by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, whereby and whereunder respondent No.1 herein /Accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the NI Act‟), accordingly, he was acquitted of the said offence.
2. Case of the complainant, briefly, is as follows.
i) The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 12.12.2004 from the complainant to meet his family expenses, for lorry business and for running mess, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. by executing a promissory note. Thereafter, he failed to repay the same as promised. On repeated demands by the complainant, the accused gave cheque bearing No.609811, dated 27.10.2005, drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Eluru, for an amount of Rs.1,17,000/- towards part satisfaction of the debt. When the complainant presented the said cheque in his bank account in Andhra Bank, it was returned dishonoured as “funds insufficient”. Then, a legal notice dated 18.11.2005 was caused on
In a Section 138 NI Act case, the complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable and requires foundational proof of debt; mere issuance of a cheque is insufficient for conviction.
The burden of proof under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies on the accused to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or liability.
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The trial court's acquittal was upheld as the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the lending capacity and enforceable debt under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The cheque amount exceeding the borrowed amount negates the applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the Complainant to establish a legally enforceable debt.
The complainant must substantiate claims of loan and repayment; initial presumptions do not relieve him of the burden to prove a legally enforceable debt.
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be applied in favor of the holder in due course unless effectively rebutted by the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be drawn in favor of the holder unless rebutted, and misinterpretation of evidence by the Trial Court can lead to a successful....
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
