Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
S. Ramchandrappa S/o Late Sonnappa – Appellant
Versus
N. Srinivasa Murthy S/o Late Nawrasappa – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.608/2015 by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City where under the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2015 passed in C.C.No2430/2009 by the XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,30,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. It was the case of respondent - complainant before the trial Court that petitioner - accused has negotiated with the respondent - complainant to purchase the complainant’s property situated at Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk for a total consideration of Rs.1.10 Crores. In pursuance of the contract, an agreement of sale was got executed and registered on 05.07.2007 and the complainant has executed power of attorney in favour of sons of accused R.Prakash and R.Somesh. At the time of execution of GPA, the petitioner - accused has expressed his financial constraints and sought for hand
A Power of Attorney holder can only represent a complainant in a cheque dishonour case if they have personal knowledge of the transaction. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrume....
Point of Law : Law is settled on point that a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be presented through power of attorney holder and power of a....
Power of attorney holders can file cheque dishonour complaints if they possess personal knowledge of the transaction; absence of such knowledge may invalidate the complaint.
The burden of proof on the complainant to establish the transaction and execution of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption in favor of the cheque holder established under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through a probable defense, and the prosecution must prove the existence ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of a husband as a witness in criminal proceedings and the importance of establishing a legally enforceable debt under the NI Act.
A Power of Attorney Holder may testify in a cheque dishonour case even if not named in the witness schedule, provided they have direct knowledge of the transaction.
A power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act in his own name; he must act on behalf of the principal and possess knowledge of the transaction.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the existence of a debt, which must be done with credible evidence.
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
