Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Mohammed Yakub S/o Usman – Appellant
Versus
Naveen Kambali S/o Narayan Kambali – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revision petition background (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner and respondent's arguments (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court analysis of evidence and defenses (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. affirmation of trial court's sentence (Para 10) |
| 5. withdrawal of deposited amount by complainant (Para 11) |
ORDER :
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the legal notice issued to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent/complainant was not served. The Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. He submits that the petitioner had not borrowed any amount from the complainant and on the other hand the cheque-in-question was issued as a guarantee for the amount borrowed from the complainant by one Sri.Ismail.
6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that complainant in support of his case has examined himself as PW.1 and has got marked 8 documents in support of this case. It is the case of the complainant that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from him and towards repayment of the said amount the cheque-in-qu
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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I.Act based on evidence of borrowal of money, issuance of cheque, and service of notice.
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 accused must provide cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of a legally recoverable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
