Back
S. RACHAIAH
H. B. Bhagyalakshmi W/o Late D. N. Madappa – Appellant
Versus
Cheluvamma W/o Late Raje Gowda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. RACHAIAH, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.10.2018 passed in C.C. No. 25323/2017 on the file of XII and XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (S.C.C.H-8), Bengaluru, wherein the Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’).
2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. The complainant was working as a teacher and she knew the accused for several years. The accused in the month of July 2016 approached the complainant and requested the complainant to lend amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- for her granddaughter’s education and also for family necessities. The complainant agreed to pay the said amount. On 27.07.2016 and 08.11.2016, the complainant has paid Rs. 30,000/- twice in the name of the daughter of the accused through cheques. Again on 08.11.2016, the accused had requested to pay the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- by way of cash. Considering her request, the complainant has paid the said amount in the pr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus on the accused to raise a probable defense and the requirements for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrume....
The standard of proof required to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act is preponderance of probabilities, and the accused is not required to prove his case beyo....
Material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders it void as per Sec. 87 of the N.I. Act.
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Material alteration in cheque's payee account number without drawer's consent or authentication renders it void under Section 87 NI Act; complainant bears burden to explain; rebuts presumptions under....
The presumption of liability in dishonor of cheques under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, requiring the accused to provide credible evidence to challenge the presumption of a legally enforce....
A dishonored cheque primarily for insufficient funds establishes liability under Section 138, while secondary reasons like signature discrepancies are irrelevant unless intent to defraud is proven.
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.
Material alterations to a negotiable instrument render it void unless consented by the parties; a court should not overturn an acquittal unless findings are unreasonable or perverse.
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
