Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Chandrababu Naidu.V, S/o Rajendra Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Brands And Bargins Pvt.Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Petitioner is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.51457/2013 by the Court of LVII ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, dated 01.06.2018 and the judgment and order dated 01.01.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.25109/2018 by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent-Company had initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in CC.No.51457/2013 before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, in response to the summons received, the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had claimed to be tried.
4. The complainant, in order to prove its case, had examined one Mr.Raghu H.V., as P.W.1 and had got marked seven documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. In support of defence, petitioner had examined himself as D.W.1. However, no documents were got marked on behalf of the defence.
5. The trial Court, aft
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 presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the issuance of a cheque remains unless rebutted by the accused, and failure to provide any evidence leads to conviction.
Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The main legal point established is that once the signature and execution of a cheque are admitted, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issu....
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 presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
The issuance of a bounced cheque towards a legally dischargeable debt constitutes an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption in favor of the complainant under Sec....
The presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque when the execution is not denied, and the need for positive evidence to prove lack of means of the respondent.
The presumption of cheque issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the evidential burden to the accused, who must rebut it 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
