Back
R. NATARAJ
M Jayanna – Appellant
Versus
H E Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. There is no representation for the petitioner, though it was called thrice.
This Court had given adequate time to either report settlement or to proceed with the matter, failing which, the petition would be taken up for disposal based on the material available on record.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dtd. 3/11/2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura in C.C.No.215/2011 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act, 1881' for short) and the consequent sentence to pay a fine of Rs.3, 50, 000.00. The gravamen of the case of the respondent was that the petitioner availed a hand loan of Rs.1, 75, 000.00 from the respondent and promised to repay the same within two months. The petitioner passed on a cheque for the said sum on the same day and assured to repay the same by the day marked on the cheque. However, the cheque when presented on the day marked on it, was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. The respondent therefore issued a notice of demand, which was not claimed by the petitio
The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption under Sec. 139 of the NI Act, 1881 in cases of dishonour of cheques.
The failure to rebut the presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to conviction under Sec. 138 of the Act.
The presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holds unless rebutted with a probable defense, leading to liability under Sec. 138.
Dishonoured of cheque - Preponderance of probabilities - Trial Court has disbelieved evidence brought by applicant side and held that presumption that is available under Section 139 of Act, 1881, has....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which holds the drawer of a dishonored cheque liable unless rebutted.
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....
Failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and lack of presenting a probable defense can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The issuance of a bounced cheque towards a legally dischargeable debt constitutes an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption in favor of the complainant under Sec....
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
