Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.UMA
Govindappa S/o Siddappa Biradar – Appellant
Versus
Vasu @ Chaju S/o Damulu Pawar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
The complainant in C.C.No.2288/2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura [for short, ‘the Trial Court’] is impugning the judgment dated 04.06.2021 acquitting the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, ‘the N.I. Act’].
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had filed the private complaint in P.C.No.174/2013 against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is the contention of the complainant that, he is an agriculturist having agricultural lands within the limits of Devaragennur village, Vijayapura taluk. He used to grow sugarcane and was supplying the same to Sri Prabhulingeshwar Sugars and Chemicals Limited, Siddapur. He was in search of a gangman for supply of labourers for the purpose of cutting the sugarcane crops and supplying it to the factory. The accused being gangman used to supply labourers for said purpose. He approached the complainant and assured of providing labourers. With such assurance, the accused obtained in all Rs.7,75,000/- during 2012-13 in the presence of
The burden of proof in dishonor cases under the N.I. Act shifts to the accused upon issuance of the cheque, and can be rebutted through evidence and inconsistencies by the complainant.
The court established that once a cheque is issued and signed, a legal presumption exists regarding its use for a valid debt, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to deny its validity.
The complainant must substantiate claims of loan and repayment; initial presumptions do not relieve him of the burden to prove a legally enforceable debt.
The trial court's acquittal was upheld as the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the lending capacity and enforceable debt under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable and requires foundational proof of debt; mere issuance of a cheque is insufficient for conviction.
Court held that issuance of a cheque raises a presumption of debt, shifting the burden to the accused to demonstrate otherwise, particularly upon admission of signature.
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The presumption of the existence of a legal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, necessitating the complainant to provide sufficient evidence of such liability.
The issuance of a negotiable instrument establishes a presumption of liability, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the debt, as established by Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
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
