Back
S. RACHAIAH
Rangaswamy – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Kumar – Respondent
ORDER :
(S. Rachaiah, J.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2017 in C.C.No.51/2016 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC at Turuvekere and the judgment and order dated 04.07.2020 in Crl.A.No.10028/2017 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act').
2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. The accused is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- in the month of September 2012 and agreed to repay the said amount to the complainant within six months. After six months, when the complainant demanded to repay the amount, the accused said to have issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.55,000/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it came to be dischonoured with a shara as 'funds insufficient'. On 10.07.2013, the complainant issued a legal notice c
The accused must provide cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of a legally recoverable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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.
The omission of particulars in lending does not negate a conviction for dishonor of a cheque if sufficient evidence of issuance exists; excessive interest imposition may be modified.
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 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 court confirmed that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions once the complainant establishes a prima facie case under the N.I. Act.
The presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holds unless rebutted with a probable defense, leading to liability under Sec. 138.
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
