Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.UMA
Basavaraj S/o Dandappa Kolur – Appellant
Versus
Hanamanth S/o Rangappa Hadimani – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final judgment reversing acquittal and convicting the accused. (Para 1 , 6 , 14) |
| 2. statement of initial allegations regarding the loan and cheque issuance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. defense provided by accused claiming misuse of cheque issued. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's reasoning on presumption of liability regarding cheque and implications for the defense. (Para 10 , 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant being the complainant in C.C.No.276/2017 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal is impugning the judgment dated 19.02.2019, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’).
3. The complainant filed the private complaint in P.C.No.22/2017. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.276/2017. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 in support of his contention. The accused denied the incriminating materials available on record, examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D16 in support of his defence. The T
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.
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.
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 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....
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 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.
The court emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act requires the accused to rebut the claim that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt, regardless of who filled it out.
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.
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 presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act requires the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt, and mere suggestions during cross-examination do not suff....
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
