Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V.HOSMANI
Preethipriya Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Sadashiva Rao S/o Late Baburao – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Sri KA Chandrashekar, learned counsel for petitioners (accused) in all these matters, submitted that revision petitions were against concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short) as follows:
2. It was submitted, Revision petitions arose out of similar facts and circumstances and that challenge was on similar grounds. Therefore reference would be made to particular facts in Crl.R.P.no.1523/2023 only for sake of convenience.
3. It was submitted, present proceedings arose out of a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for short) alleging that accused Firm was due to complainant a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and for discharge of same, issued cheque bearing no.122968 dated 30.03.2015 drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Tipturu Branch, which when presented returned dishonored with endorsement ‘funds insufficient' on 12.04.2015 and thereafter, demand notice dated 23.04.2015 got issued by complainant returned with postal shara 'addressee absent for seven days' and accused failed to repay cheque amount within time and th
The omission of particulars in lending does not negate a conviction for dishonor of a cheque if sufficient evidence of issuance exists; excessive interest imposition may be modified.
To convict under Section 138 of the NI Act, it is essential to establish the signature and due execution of the cheque, with the burden resting on the accused to disprove after admission.
The burden to prove financial capability lies on the complainant when the accused raises a probable defense, not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
When a complainant discharges their initial burden under Sections 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, presumptions in their favor come into play, which can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities.
The accused must provide cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of a legally recoverable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 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
