Back
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Krishna Reddy M, S/O Late Chikkamuniswamy – Appellant
Versus
N. Sharadamma, W/O Venkataswamy Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
This appeal is filed by the complainant-appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of accused- respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument (in short `the Act') passed in C.C.No.4696 of 2010 dated 20th November 2014 by the XXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City.
2. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.
3. That complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against accused - respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act alleging that, himself and accused are known to each other. It is stated that, in the second week of December 2009, accused approached the complainant for a financial assistance to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- to meet her urgent legal requirements. It is stated that accordingly on the request of the accused, complainant advanced a loan of Rupees six lakhs to the accused on the 9.12.2009 by hard cash. The accused promised to repay the same within a period of six months time.
4. In repayment of the said loan amount, accused issu
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.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
The presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove non-existence of debt, which was not done in this case.
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
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.
The court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
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
