Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
Ram Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
Vagunta Yadubhushanarao – Respondent
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2003, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, challenging the judgment, dated 16.03.2005, where under the learned Principal Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, confirming the judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2003, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), West Godavari District at Eluru. The Revision Petitioner faced trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West Godavari District at Eluru for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (“N.I. Act” for short) and he was convicted under Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3. The case of the complainant before the Court below, according to the averments in the complaint fil
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
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 favoring the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remains unless disproven by the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the importance of proving the contrary to rebut the pres....
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.
Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affirming that the dishonoured cheque was issued in discharge of a debt, with the accused failing to rebut statutory p....
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
