Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.BASAVARAJA
T Prakash S/o Late Thimmashetty – Appellant
Versus
Drakshayeni W/o Ramesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.BASAVARAJA, J.
The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur in CC No.25/2022 dated 12.07.2023.
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 appellant has filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. It is alleged by the complainant that, during the 1st week of September-2021, the accused has borrowed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for payment of her father's hospital expenses and for her family necessities. She agreed to repay the said loan within three months and towards repayment, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.877480 on 06.11.2021 drawn on State Bank of India, Malur Branch. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment before Karnataka Gramina Bank, Kudiyanur Branch, same returned with endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice dated 01.12.2021 to the accused through RPAD and the same was duly served on 08.12.2021. Inspite of legal notice, accused did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complaina
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 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 presumption of consideration for a cheque does not negate the complainant's burden to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt, which can be rebutted by the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt, and the burden to rebut t....
The appellant must establish the monetary transaction and discharge the initial burden to raise the presumption under sec. 139 of N.I. Act to succeed in a case under sec. 138 of N.I. Act.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt is rebuttable and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this instance.
Dishonour of cheque – When Complainant has not established his financial status, presumption is not available in his favour.
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
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
