Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
C.M.POONACHA
Kamal Kumar Jain S/o Shantilal Jain – Appellant
Versus
Benaka Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C.M. POONACHA, J.
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Cr.P.C.’], by the appellant/complainant challenging the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in C.C.No.2370/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’], whereunder, in the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’]
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that the complainant, who is the proprietor of M.K.Minerals, Hosapete, was engaged in mining business at Hosapete and had business dealings with the accused No.1, a sponge iron manufacturing company. The accused No.2 is the director of accused No.1/Company.
3. The accused No.1 had been purchasing iron ore and allied products from the complainant since 2008 and used to make payments towards the purchase amounts periodically. Between 15.12.2008 and 31.08.2009, the complainant supplied various goods to the accused under multiple invoices, as per its requirements,
The court upheld the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, requiring accused to demonstrate absence of a legally enforceable debt to contest cheque dishonor charges.
The accused's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the service of notice of dishonour within the prescribed period led to the Court upholding the conviction and the co....
Admission of cheque execution triggers Sections 118/139 NI Act presumptions of debt; burden on accused to rebut by evidence; trial acquittal ignoring presumption and shifting onus to complainant is p....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
The accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, failing....
The presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to prove the contrary if the cheque's signature is admitted, which was not done in this case.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Admission of cheque issuance triggers Section 139 presumption of debt discharge, rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; uncorroborated security claim fails rebuttal; r....
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
