Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Abdul Hameed, S/o Late K Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
Ashraya Fill And Fly Rept By Its Manager Mithun – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges conviction and sentence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner accused of cheque dishonor. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. dispute regarding rightful representation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. transaction amount and obligations are clear. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. lack of proof regarding manager's authority affects case. (Para 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. case law regarding complaint standing relevant. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. precedent does not apply to this case. (Para 15) |
| 8. case remanded for further consideration. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. Petitioner-accused is before this Court assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2023 passed in CC.No.1238/2020 by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.88/2023 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, by judgment and order dated31.08.2023.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner herein was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in CC.No.1238/2020 before the Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the respondent-complainant that petitioner is the customer of the respondent-f
The authority of a firm's representative to file a complaint under Section 138 must be proved; failure to do so invalidates the conviction.
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favor of the complainant regarding legally enforceable debt remains unless the accused proves otherwise.
The burden lies on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued for debt, and mere denial is insufficient for acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The issuance of a cheque establishes liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption of its validity, which he failed to do.
Power of attorney holders can file cheque dishonour complaints if they possess personal knowledge of the transaction; absence of such knowledge may invalidate the complaint.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed by a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be in the name of the company and can be represented b....
A complainant must prove the execution of a cheque by direct knowledge or witness testimony; reliance solely on records fails to establish the burden of proof.
The court affirmed that a complaint under Section 138 requires valid authorization from a company’s board, and without it, the complaint is invalid regardless of other evidence.
The burden of proof on the complainant to establish the transaction and execution of the cheque 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
