Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Sangeetha Narayan, D/o. K.S. Lakshminarayan – Appellant
Versus
C. Raghavendra, S/o. Yathiraju – Respondent
ORDER :
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. )
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.25122/2020 by the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 18.05.2020 passed in C.C.No.54173/2018 by the XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity) has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court is that the petitioner –accused was personally known to him. The petitioner –accused approached the respondent –complainant during the first week of August -2016 and asked hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Tow Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for her urgent business commitments and promised to repay the same within a year. The respondent –complainant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Tow Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) on 17.08.2016 in cash. The petitioner –accused failed to repay the amount borrowed even after one year as agreed. On
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 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 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.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; if rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the complainant to establish borrowing.
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 presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when a cheque's signature is admitted, unless expressly rebutted.
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defense must raise a credible and sufficient rebuttal to the presumption of liability 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.
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
