Back
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
K. Damodaran S/O Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
M. Shivaramareddy – Respondent
Key Points:- The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt; signature authenticity also must be proven where denied by the accused (!) (!) .- If the accused denies the signature on the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 does not apply (!) .- The revision petition results in acquittal of the accused and setting aside of conviction and sentence under Section 138; bail bond canceled; any deposited amount to be refunded (!) (!) (!) (!) .- The trial court’s conviction under Section 138 was reversed due to insufficient evidence of debt and signature authenticity (!) (!) (!) .- The complainant’s financial capacity and corroboration of the debt are relevant to proving enforceability (!) (!) .- The absence of expert testimony on signature reduces certainty of signature authenticity (!) .- The evidence of PW2 and PW3 regarding signature differences does not definitively establish enforceable debt (!) (!) .- The accused’s defense of theft of the cheque was not supported by complaint or action, but this defense does not create presumption in complainant’s favor without proof of debt and signature (!) (!) .- The final order acquits the accused and sets aside the conviction and sentence; refunds of deposits where applicable (!) (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF in C.C.No.260/04 and confirmed by Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crl.A.No.7/12 vide judgment dated 31.01.2015.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to the original ranking occupied by them before the trial court.
3. The factual matrix leading to filing of the case are that the accused has approached the complainant on 05.05.2003 and availed a loan amount of Rs.1,75,000/-for payment of his personal debt. He has also issued a cheque dated 05.05.2003 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Robertsonpet, KGF in discharge of the said debt. The complainant has presented the said cheque on 16.06.2003 and the said cheque returned with an endorsement that 'signature differs from specimen signature available in the office'. The complainant has got issued a legal notice under registered post and accused has refused the same and hence, a complaint was lodged by the complainant. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Magistrate has ta
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply if the accused denies the signature on the cheque, and the complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforce....
The validity of a cheque dishonor complaint under Section 138 depends on demonstrating a legally enforceable debt, which the complainant failed to establish.
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....
To convict under Section 138 of the NI Act, it is essential to establish the signature and due execution of the cheque, with the burden resting on the accused to disprove after admission.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the loan transaction, the service of legal notice, and the failure to establish valid defenses in cases of cheque bounce under Section 138 of the N.I....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be issued for discharging a debt, which the accused must reb....
Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceabl....
A cheque issued for repayment establishes liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused, who failed to provide sufficient evidenc....
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
