RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
S. S. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
K. Lokesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No .3892/2008 dtd. 29/12/2011 and confirmed by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.75/2012 dtd. 22/4/2013 .
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant is a businessman and accused is known to him and he used to get financial assistance from the complainant. It is further asserted that due to business needs, the accused has taken a hand loan of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 from the complainant in the year 2002 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum. It is also alleged that the accused failed to repay the loan amount as well as interest and ultimately the accused and complainant have arrived at a settlement on 7/12/2007 and accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8, 60, 000.00 for discharging all his debt of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 with interest thereon and issued a cheque for Rs.8, 60, 000.00 drawn on State Bank of India, Tyagarajanagara Branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented, it bounc
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....
Dishonour of cheque – When a cheque is issued towards a time-barred debt and is dishonoured, liability under Section 138 of N.I. Act squarely arises.
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....
A cheque issued for a time-barred debt does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to no offence being committed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I.Act based on evidence of borrowal of money, issuance of cheque, and service of notice.
The nature of the debt must be proven during trial, and there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque.
The court emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and the burden on the accused to prove the absence of a legally enforceable debt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful rebuttal of the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the failur....
Part payment of debt extends limitation for recovery, hence upholding conviction under Section 138 despite defense claims of repayment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.