Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J
Preethi’s – Appellant
Versus
T.T.K. Prestige Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Crl.R.P.No.266/2022 is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.15680/2010 and judgment of confirmation dated 23.10.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1000/2015.
2. Crl.P.No.7694/2022 is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.600/2015 allowing the revision petition and enhancing the fine amount to Rs.24 lakhs.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short) is that the complainant is a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling of Prestige Range of kitchen utensils. The accused No.1 is the proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor accused No.2. The accused was appointed as authorized dealer and the complainant has supplied their Prestige range of products as per the purchase orders placed by the accused and the accused was liable to pay the value of the goods supplied for them. Towards the said payment, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.649099 dated 19.12.2009 dra
The issuance of a cheque constitutes acknowledgment of liability; presumption of enforceability exists unless rebutted with credible evidence, reaffirming the validity of debts in commercial transact....
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the presumption to avoid conviction under Section 138.
Admission of cheque issuance raises presumption of liability under NI Act Ss.118/139; rebuttal requires evidence beyond CrPC 313 denial. Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the importance of proving the contrary to rebut the pres....
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
A mandatory presumption applies in dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to provide evidence to rebut the lawful liability for which a cheque was ....
The court confirmed that presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act applies, shifting the burden of proof to the accused in a cheque dishonor case, with concurrent findings of fact upheld....
Dishonoured cheque attracts presumption of lawful debt under NI Act unless rebutted by accused on preponderance of probabilities; failure justifies conviction even for security cheque with subsisting....
Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act holds where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut lawful liability with evidence; security cheques enforceable if dishonoured due to default; no ....
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
