Back
J. M. KHAZI
N. Rajappa – Appellant
Versus
Manu Ittina – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant who is complainant, has filed this appeal under Sec. 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C, challenging the judgment and order of the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.113/2016, whereby the Sessions Court reversed the conviction imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and acquitted the accused.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of complainant that accused is a developer-cum-builder having business in the name and style of Ittina properties Private Limited. Accused has dealt with complainant with regard to land and received Rs.27.00 lakhs. However, he did not return the said amount on the ground that he has suffered loss. When demanded repayment of the said amount, accused issued a cheque bearing No.701059 dtd. 31/3/2013, drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs.27.00 lakhs. On 14/6/2013, when complainant presented the said cheque for realization, it was returned dishonoured on the ground that the drawer's signature differs. In this regard on the advice of accused, complainant re-presented the said cheque for encashment on 24/6/2013. Once again, it was dishonoured on the ground
The presumption of issuance of a cheque under the N.I. Act can be rebutted by the accused, and the burden then shifts to the complainant to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt.
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act rebutted on preponderance of probabilities where cross-examination shows complainant's lack of financial capacity as housewife with unproven remitt....
The presumption of a legally recoverable debt under the N.I. Act can be rebutted by the accused, and the burden then shifts to the complainant to prove the existence of the debt and his financial cap....
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
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
