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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of high court and procedural context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of trial and appeal proceedings. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's and respondent's arguments. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. complainant's case and documentation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. burden of proof and presumption under section 139. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. assessment of defenses and reasoning for conviction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. final order dismissing the revision petition. (Para 15) |
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
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....
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
