Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
Venkataraman S/o. Nagendra Hegde – Appellant
Versus
Dattatraya Damodhar Shet – Respondent
ORDER :
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.
Criminal Revision petition 100153/2018 is filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order dated 21.10.2016 passed in C.C. No.576/2009 by the I Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Sirsi (for short, ‘trial Court’) and Criminal Appeal No.5042/2016 dated 12.07.2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’)
2. Criminal Revision petition 100054/2019 is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 21.10.2016 passed in C.C. No.576/2009 by the I Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Sirsi and Crl.A.No.5045/2016 dated 12.07.2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, seeking to enhance the penalty to Rs.5,00,000/- and pay the same as a compensation and further to sentence the accused to imprisonment for a period of two years.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of these petitions are that, the complainant and the accused were friends and the accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant
The provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act apply when issued cheques are dishonored due to insufficient funds, thus reinforcing the legal obligation of repayment.
The presumption of guilt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut it; a failure to do so leads to affirmation of conviction.
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption.
The court confirmed that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions once the complainant establishes a prima facie case under the N.I. Act.
The court reaffirmed statutory presumptions under the NI Act regarding cheque liability, emphasizing the evidentiary burden on the accused.
The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act create a burden on the accused to disprove liability, which was not achieved.
The presumption of issuance of a cheque for a legally recoverable debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can only be rebutted by the accused through credible evidence, which the petitioner failed to ....
The presumption under sections 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act can establish the offense of cheque bounce, and the accused must rebut this presumption to avoid conviction.
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
