Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
M.Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Yateendra Jain, S/o. Manoharmalji Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under section 138 of the n.i act (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. summary of case details leading to conviction. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding cheque validity (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observation on evidence and liability (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. affirmation of trial court's conviction (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.752/2012 by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 22.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.2479/2008 by the XV 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. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent.
3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court was that the complainant is dealer in tissue paper and paper products under the name and style as M/s S.R Agency. The accused is businessman and Proprietor of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products and Managing Director of ac
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when a cheque's signature is admitted, unless expressly rebutted.
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 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.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; if rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the complainant to establish borrowing.
A complainant must prove the execution of a cheque by direct knowledge or witness testimony; reliance solely on records fails to establish the burden of proof.
Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a successful prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates that issued cheques are presumed to be for legally enforceable debts, which the accused must rebut with evidence.
When a complainant discharges their initial burden under Sections 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, presumptions in their favor come into play, which can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities.
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
