Back
B.A.PATIL
Revanappa – Appellant
Versus
T. Rangappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B. A. PATIL, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the judgment passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Criminal Appeal No.909/2011 dated 3.10.2015 whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shikaripura in C.C.No.38/2008 dated 18.11.2011 has been confirmed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Though several adjournments have been made, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused. As the petition cannot be dismissed for default, it has to be heard and decided on merits and as such the case was taken on merits and disposed of by this order.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is that, for urgent need of the accused he has taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 1.9.2007 and accused in discharge of the said loan has issued a cheque bearing No.457546 dated 3.9.2007 and when it was presented to the bank, the same was returned with shara 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter he has got issued the legal notice. In spite of the legal notice, he did not turned up and has not paid the amount and as such a private complaint has been
[No cases identified as bad law. None of the provided case laws contain keywords or phrases indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law.]
Rangappa VS Sri Mohan - 2010 4 Supreme 169: This case appears to have been followed or affirmed in subsequent decisions. It explicitly states two points of law as authoritative: (1) "the standard of proof for doing so is that of ‘preponderance of probabilities’" and (2) "Presumption mandated by Section 139 of NI Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability." The use of "Therefore" and the numbered declarative statements suggest these holdings are being positively cited or relied upon, with no indication of negative treatment such as criticized, questioned, overruled, or reversed.
None. The treatment of [Rangappa VS Sri Mohan - 2010 4 Supreme 169 is clear based on the affirmative and conclusive language used, with no ambiguous phrases present.]
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
