Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G BASAVARAJA
K.P. Nagaraju, S/O Ponnegowda – Appellant
Versus
Ravi. P, S/O Puttaswamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G BASAVARAJA, J.
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 08.08.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.30/2019 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short 'the trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the complainant and accused are well known to each other. Accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the complainant on 18.12.2015 for the purpose of legal necessities i.e., for discharge of hand loan and to purchase the Toyota DCM vehicle. The accused had agreed to repay the loan amount within two months. After lapse of two months, complainant demanded for the repayment of the loan amount, but the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.074500 dated 20.02.2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, V.V.Puram Branch, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in favour of the complainant. As per the instruction of the accused, the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment through his collective bank i.e., Vijaya Bank, Koppa Branch. The said cheque was returned on 01.03.2016 with endorsement "insufficient
The presumption of the issuance of a cheque in discharge of a debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act must be upheld in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary from the accused.
The appeal was dismissed as the trial court found inconsistencies in evidence and upheld the presumption of innocence in favor of the acquitted accused.
The burden of proof in Section 138 NI Act cases shifts to the complainant when the accused challenges their financial capacity, emphasizing that presumption of innocence protects the acquitted party.
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
Dishonour of cheque – When Complainant has not established his financial status, presumption is not available in his favour.
The presumption of innocence is reinforced in acquittal cases, with the burden of proof on the complainant to establish the enforceable debt and financial capacity.
Presumption under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act mandates that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or liability, and the burden is on the accused to raise a probable defense to rebut the presumption.
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
