Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J
A.C.Krishnamurthy S/O Late Chikkaiah – Appellant
Versus
M.L. Jawaharlal S/o Lakkaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and factual background. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. evidence and witness examinations in trial. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. accused's defense and arguments presented. (Para 5 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. arguments regarding legal presumptions under n.i. act. (Para 7 , 9 , 12) |
| 5. judgment analysis and court's reasoning. (Para 11 , 20) |
| 6. the court found the trial court erred in accepting the defense without credible evidence. (Para 19) |
| 7. final reconsideration of trial court's error. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. the court ruled in favor of the complainant, reversing the acquittal. (Para 23) |
| 9. conclusion and order of appeal. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.13970/2003 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant/appellant before the Trial Court that the respondent/accused is known to him and accused requested the complainant from second week of January to first week of March, 2003 to make the money of Rs.3,00,000/- with an assurance to pay the said amount within a month stating that h
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.
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....
Admission of cheque execution raises presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of legally enforceable debt; rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities. Firm signatory liable under Section 14....
Presumption under Sections 118(a)/139 NI Act rebutted by probable defence evidence that cheque was security for shop 'Pagri' payable only on possession delivery, which failed; unregistered long-term ....
The court affirmed that a cheque must reflect a legally enforceable debt; evidence insufficiency can rebut the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumptions under sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act favor the holder, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the claims of liability.
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
