Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J
N.S. Vishwanath, S/O. Late N. Siddaiah – Appellant
Versus
Sathyavijaya R., S/O. Late Revanna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. Sandesh, J.
The Crl.A.No.5/2024 is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.12.2023 in C.C.No.6061/2022 passed by the XII ASCJ and ACMM Court, Bengaluru and Crl.A.No.455/2024 is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.01.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.1350/2022 by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru reversing the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed in C.C.No.10763/2021 by the XII Additional and ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. The appellant in both the appeals is common and the respondents in both the appeals are different. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the cases and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The factual aspects of the case of Crl.A.No.5/2024 which is arising out of C.C.No.6061/2022 is that the complainant and the accused are known to each other. The accused had sought hand loan of Rs.9/- lakh from him to clear hand loan borrowed for his son’s marriage and also to clear old debts and hence, the said amount was paid to the accused by way of cash on 21.12.2021 and the accused had agreed to repay the said amount within two months with 18% interest. The accused issued
The court emphasized the presumption of validity of cheques under Section 139, stating that the accused holds the burden to prove lack of consideration, and failure to rebut results in the continuati....
The appeal was dismissed as the trial court found inconsistencies in evidence and upheld the presumption of innocence in favor of the acquitted accused.
Point of Law : When the accused was under financial constraints, the loan was taken and not disputed the fact that the cheque was given in 2004. Though contended that date of cheque has not been ment....
The judgment established the principle that the presumption of debt and liability under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act can only be rebutted by probabalising a defence, and the standard of proof required is pre....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt is rebuttable and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this instance.
The presumption of debt under Section 138 requires the accused to prove non-existence of liability; the Trial Court erred in acquitting based on unproven defences.
The burden of proof on the accused in cases under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, the presumption of innocence, and the need for compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal.
The burden of proof in Section 138 NI Act cases shifts to the complainant when the accused challenges their financial capacity, emphasizing that presumption of innocence protects the acquitted party.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; the burden shifts to the complainant to prove existence of debt when the accused raises a probable defense challengi....
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
