Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice V Srinivas, J
Alla Appalakonda, Visakhapatnam Dist. – Appellant
Versus
P.P. Hyd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(V. SRINIVAS, J.)
Assailing the judgment dated 13.10.2015 in Crl.A.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 12.12.2011 in C.C.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, for the offence under section 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 .
2. The revision case was admitted on 21.01.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.294 of 2016.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 17.01.2008, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed Ex.P.1 promissory note in favour of the complainant. Later, accused got issued Ex.P.2 cheque bearing No.779332, dated 08.12.2009 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Seethmmadhara Branch at Visakhapatnam towards part payment of
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 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 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.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of dishonor of a cheque.
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the presumption to avoid conviction under Section 138.
The presumption of dishonor under Section 138 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the complainant's evidence, which was not done in this case.
The main legal point established is the presumption of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when a cheque is dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the legal requirements for ....
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....
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
