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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan transaction and cheque return details. (Para 3) |
| 2. appellants and respondents arguments on financial capacity. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and legal principles. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. rebuttable presumption under ni act. (Para 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 5. final order reversing acquittal. (Para 15) |
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
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.
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act rebutted on preponderance of probabilities where cross-examination shows complainant's lack of financial capacity as housewife with unproven remitt....
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
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.
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
