Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
K.V.ARAVIND
H.R.Padmini W/o Bharamappa – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesh Somappa Bantanur – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri K. Suresh Desai and Sri Suhas Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This criminal petition is filed by the accused-petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 03.10.2017 passed in C.C. No.2601/2014 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), as well as the judgment dated 27.09.2019 passed in Crl.A. No.123/2017 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellate Court’).
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant and the accused were acquainted with each other. The accused approached the complainant seeking a loan for the purpose of constructing a house and discharging certain private loans, to the extent of Rs. 9,65,000/-. The complainant lent a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- in cash, Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of bank transfer on 07.12.2013, and a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 09.12.2013, thus making up a total of Rs. 9,65,000/-. Upon receipt of the said amount, the accused promised to repay the same within six to eight months. After the expiry of th
The existence of an enforceable debt is presumed under Section 139 of the NI Act but can be rebutted if the accused raises a probable defence against part of the claim.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the burden of proof on the accused to rebut claims of debt, failure to do so solidifies conviction for dishonored cheques.
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....
The accused failed to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding cheque dishonor, leading to conviction, while the fine imposed was deemed excessive and modified.
The accused's burden to disprove receipt of loan under Section 138 N.I. Act must be established with cogent evidence, citing precedents on proof of debt and the validity of cash transactions.
Point of law: Dishonour of cheque - Discrepancy in the amount - Discrepancy in the amount reflected in the cheque and the actual amount due by the accused, the accused cannot be proceeded under secti....
:DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE – ACQUITTAL UNDER - under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of debt or liability, but the existence ....
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
