Back
R. HEMALATHA
D. Ebenezer Daniel Raj – Appellant
Versus
B. Dinesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment dated 20.07.2023 in C.A.No.101/2020 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.)
1. Challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and orders dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.101/2020 in and by which the conviction and sentence dated 01.02.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1 at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore in C.C.No.207/2015, was confirmed.
2. The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows :
2.1. The complainant and the accused are known to each other. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant on 16.08.2012 to meet his urgent family needs and for developing his business. The revision petitioner/accused assured that he would repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum on demand.
2.2. When the complainant demanded the accused to repay the amount, the petitioner/acc
The Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family can file a complaint in his individual capacity under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused must rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act.
Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the presumption under Section 139 were crucial in establishing the accused's guilt.
The main legal point established is that once the signature and execution of a cheque are admitted, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issu....
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....
Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act led to the acquittal of the accused.
Failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and lack of presenting a probable defense can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The accused cannot be tried for contradictory offences in the given factual scenario.
The presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holds unless rebutted with a probable defense, leading to liability under Sec. 138.
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
