Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Yuvarajanaika, S/o. Lakshmananaika – Appellant
Versus
G. Gopala, S/o. Gundabhovi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of loan and cheque transaction. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding misuse of cheque and evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of evidence and admissions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. principles regarding presumption under n.i. act. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.)
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 118/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru whereunder the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.06.2016 passed in C.C. No. 177/2012 by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur convicting the petitioner - accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `N.I. Act’) and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.1,45,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
3 months has been confirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner – accused and learned counsel for respondent – complainant.
3. It is the case of respondent - complainant that he and accused were known to each other. Petitioner - accused had a
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 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 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.
The issuance of a negotiable instrument establishes a presumption of liability, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the debt, as established by Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
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 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 court established that once a cheque is issued and signed, a legal presumption exists regarding its use for a valid debt, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to deny its validity.
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 under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the 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
