Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.Uma
Veershetty S/O Ganpathrao Biradar – Appellant
Versus
Ramshetty S/O Gurubasappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review of trial court's acquittal (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. point of consideration for appellate court (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. evidence and testimonies from both parties (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. forensic examination of evidence (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. legal presumption regarding negotiable instruments (Para 15 , 19) |
| 6. burden of proof in section 138 cases (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. conclusion and sentencing of the accused (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
M.G. Uma, J.
The complainant in C.C. No.1105 of 2011 on the file of the learned principle Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar [for short ‘Trial Court’] is impugning the judgment dated 07.03.2022 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [for short ‘N.I. Act’].
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Trial Court in P.C. No.73/2009 against the respondent alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is the contention of the complainant in the private complaint that, the accused approached him for grant of loan and accordingly, he advanced hand loan of Rs.1,60,000/-. Accused has not re-paid the loan amo
The signed blank cheque carries a legal presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate non-liability.
A signed cheque creates a presumption of liability in favor of the payee, where the accused must prove otherwise to avoid conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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 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.
A signed cheque establishes a presumption of liability; the accused must provide evidence to rebut this presumption to avoid conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on the accused to disprove the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
The court reaffirmed that the burden to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies with the accused, and a signed blank cheque can still be valid if issued towards....
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
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
