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
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 he would pay the amount immediately after clearance of the Government bill of contract work and believing the words of the accused, the complainant made the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash on 10.04.2003 and the accused issued the subject matter of the Cheque dated 09.05.2003 for repayment of the said amount. When the said Cheque was presented before the bank, it was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, thus, the complainant contacted the accused in this regard and the accused requested to present the said Cheque after three weeks and again the complainant presented the said Cheque for the sec
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....
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 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.
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....
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
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
