Back
R. NATARAJ
Umesh B C – Appellant
Versus
N Bojaraju – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dtd. 12/3/2015 passed by the XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.8700/2013 for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.8, 10, 000.00. The petitioner has also called in question the judgment dtd. 4/12/2015 passed by the LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.595/2015 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant.
3. The records disclose that the complainant and the accused were known to each other and out of such acquaintance, the accused requested the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.8, 00, 000.00 on 15/7/2012. The complainant sensing the request of the accused to be just, agreed to pay and accordingly, paid a sum of Rs.8, 00, 000.00 on 18/7/2012. The accused had executed an on demand
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 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 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....
The presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque, the importance of providing evidence to substantiate defenses, and the significance of documentary evidence in establishing liability.
The burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque when the execution is not denied, and the need for positive evidence to prove lack of means of the respondent.
The presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holds unless rebutted with a probable defense, leading to liability under Sec. 138.
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
