Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J
Manjunath S/O H C Puttaswamy – Appellant
Versus
Zubair S/O Ibrahim – Respondent
ORDER :
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.10.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.43/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru where under the judgment of conviction of the petitioner dated 20.01.2022 by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the complainant was that he has supplied materials to the petitioner-accused worth Rs.2,35,044/- under bill No.053 dated 30.09.2018 and accused has issued two cheques of Rs.85,000/- each dated 30.08.2018 bearing Nos.768736 and 768737 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Chikkamagaluru. The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment and the said cheques came to be dishonoured under bank memo dated 22.11.2018 with reason “funds insufficient”. The complainant got issued legal notice on 28.11.2018 and it has been served on the accused on 04.12.2018. Inspite of the said notice the petitioner – accused has not paid the amount of cheques within 15 days and therefore, the
The petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act led to upholding his conviction for dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds.
The conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is justified when the accused fails to rebut the statutory presumption of cheque issuance for discharging a debt, shifting the evidential burden there....
The court held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused bears the burden to rebut the presumption that a cheque was issued for a valid debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the cheque's issuance for a legal liability, which was not s....
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the issuance of a cheque remains unless rebutted by the accused, and failure to provide any evidence leads to conviction.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharging a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
The presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's issuance is admitted, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt, shifting the burd....
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
The presumption of cheque issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the evidential burden to the accused, who must rebut it to avoid conviction.
The statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unless the accused provides adequate rebuttal evidence, which was not done in this case.
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
