Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
N. Veena, W/o. Satish – Appellant
Versus
Samrudhi Ram, D/o. Ramachandrappa – Respondent
ORDER :
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.)
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 674/2014 by LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2017 passed in C.C. No. 21647/2016 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `N.I. Act’) has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner – accused. Learned counsel for respondent remained absent and has not addressed arguments.
3. Case of the respondent – complainant was that the petitioner – accused had availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner – accused, in order to repay the amount borrowed, had issued post dated cheque in the month of April, 2016, bearing No. 006156 dated 17.06.2016 for repayment of the amount borrowed. The respondent - complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and it came to be dishonoured for the reason `account closed’. The respondent - complainant got issued legal notice dated 16.07.2016 to the petitioner - accused calling upo
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 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.
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 issuance of a cheque in discharge of a debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise, with convictions upheld when the ....
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....
Once there is no denial of issuance of cheque and signatures thereupon, presumption as available under Ss.118 and 139 comes into play.
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 of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
The accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, failing....
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
