Back
H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
H. S. Venugopala Reddy, Son of K. P. Srinivasa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
M. Ramesh, Son of Muniyappa – Respondent
ORDER :
The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate : at Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), in Criminal Case No.30677/2005, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the N.I. Act”) and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04-06-2009.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal, in the Court of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.498/2009.
The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge’s Court in its judgment and order dated 08-03-2012, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dated 04-06-2009 in C.C.No.30677/2005.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts, the accused has preferred this revision petition.
2. The summary of the case of t
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused can rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by presenting evidence that raises doubts....
Material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders it void as per Sec. 87 of the N.I. Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful rebuttal of the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the failur....
The burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the standard of proof required.
A cheque issued for a loan is enforceable under Section 138 unless effectively rebutted, even if the lender lacks a money lending license.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act applies unless substantively rebutted, and any alteration in the cheque must be proven materially by the accused.
The presumption of consideration and debt under Sec. 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act places the burden on the accused to disprove the existence of a debt once the cheque is admitted, and the complainant'....
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
The presumption of cheque issuance for a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was not rebutted by the accused, leading to conviction.
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
