Back
S. RACHAIAH
S. P. Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
M. J. Prabhakar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 19/2/2015 in C.C.No.15712/2011 on the file of the Court of XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and its confirmation judgment and order dtd. 27/11/2015 in Crl.A.No.413/2015 on the file of the Court of the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ' N.I Act ').
2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court and appellant before the Appellate Court. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. It is the case of the complainant/respondent that, the complainant and the petitioner/accused are known to each other. Due to the said acquaintance, in the third week of March 2010, the petitioner had asked the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4, 50, 000.00 to meet his urgent financial commitments and assured that he would pay interest of 2% per month for the said amount and also further assured that,
The presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt.
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 complainant must demonstrate financial capacity when challenged by the accused in a Section 138 NI Act case, otherwise the presumption shifts responsibility.
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 burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and lack of presenting a probable defense can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption.
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
