Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V. HOSMANI
Subramanyam K., S/o. Late Kannappa – Appellant
Versus
Asma Siddequa, W/o. A.R. Irfan Ahmed – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Challenging judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed by LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-60), in Crl.A.no.76/2023 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2022 passed by XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.13759/2018, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri BR Viswanath, learned counsel for petitioner (accused no.1) submitted that revision petition was against concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted, impugned proceedings were based on a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘CrPC’, for short) alleging that accused no.1 was introduced to complainant by a common friend Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad, and that accused no.1 and 2 had approached her for hand loan to improve their fruits business and on 16.03.2017, they had received Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque no.925445 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.03.2017 by cash and Rs.2,50,000/- each on 23.05.2017 by cheques no.258301 and 258303 drawn on Syndica
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the presumption of a cheque being issued for a legally enforceable debt was not successfully rebutted by the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful rebuttal of the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the failur....
The burden to prove financial capability lies on the complainant when the accused raises a probable defense, not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act in establishing the guilt of the accus....
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
The presumption of cheque issuance for a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was not rebutted by the accused, leading to conviction.
Cheques issued under Section 138 of the NI Act create a presumption of legally enforceable liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
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 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
