Back
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
Mahabala – Appellant
Versus
Usha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment of conviction dtd. 21/2/2015 passed by the Court of JMFC-V, Mangaluru ('trial Court' for short) in CC No.692/2011 and confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, ('Appellate Court' for short) in Criminal Appeal No.85/2015 vide judgment dtd. 11/3/2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by the parties before the trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant- Smt.Usha and accused- Sri.Mahabala are acquainted with each other and as per the request of the accused, the complainant has advanced hand-loan of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 on 20/4/2009 for financial needs of the accused and the accused promised to repay the loan amount within six months and he had executed On-demand Promissory Note along with receipt of consideration. He has also pledged original RC Book pertaining to Maruti ALTO Car bearing No.KA.19.Z.6502. But, the accused has failed to repay the loan amount as agreed and when the complainant has demanded for repayment of the loan amount, the accused issued a
The presumption of a cheque's validity under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act is a rebuttable presumption, and the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to counter it, which was not met in this case....
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 under Section 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by the accused if the complainant fails to provide essential details regarding the loan transaction, affecting the validity of the conv....
A cheque issued for a debt that is barred by the law of limitation cannot be enforced under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sec. 13....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
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 of issuance of a cheque for a legally recoverable debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can only be rebutted by the accused through credible evidence, which the petitioner failed to ....
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
