Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Dhanashekara S/o T.K.Muthu – Appellant
Versus
B. L. Shivalinge Gowda S/o Late Bevoori Lingegowda – Respondent
ORDER :
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.17/2017 by the IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Mandya where under the judgment of conviction of the petitioner dated 07.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.178/2013 by the I Additional Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.7,20,000/- has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of respondent/complainant before the trial Court was that he and petitioner/accused were known to each other and petitioner/accused who was in need of money for his business borrowed Rs.3,60,000/- from respondent/complainant on 17.01.2013 agreeing to repay the same within two months. The petitioner/accused issued post dated cheque bearing No.702448 dated 22.03.2013 draw on HDFC Bank, Saraswathipuram Branch, Mysuru. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. The said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason “account closed”. The complainant got issued le
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 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 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 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 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 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....
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; if rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the complainant to establish borrowing.
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
