Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
M. Ramesha S/o Gante Muniyappa – Appellant
Versus
G.V. Ashwathanarayana Reddy, S/o Late Venkata Reddy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction for dishonor of cheque under n.i. act (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. disputes regarding issuance and timing of notice (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. presumption under section 139 of n.i. act (Para 6 , 7 , 21) |
| 4. burden of proof and evidential standards for rebutting presumption (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. validity of cheque presentation and response timeframes (Para 9 , 18 , 20) |
| 6. clarifications on cheque dates and lending evidence (Para 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 7. final judgment dismissing the appeal (Para 22) |
ORDER :
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.01.2016 passed in Crl.A. No. 42/2015 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (sitting at Chintamani) where under the judgment of conviction dated 13.05.2015 passed in C.C. No. 103/2011 by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner – accused and learned counsel for respondent – complainant.
3. Case of the respondent - complainant is that the petitioner - accused had borrowed h
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 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.
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 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....
Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, issuance of a cheque creates a presumption of a legally enforceable debt, and the burden lies on the accused to disprove this, which was not done.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption of debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the case.
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 applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
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
