Back
E. V. VENUGOPAL
B. Manik Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
(E.V. Venugopal, J.)
1. This criminal revision case is filed challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated 30.12.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 247 of 2011 by the learned XIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad upon the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. The second respondent herein instituted a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner took hand loan of Rs. 2.00 lakhs from the second respondent to meet his urgent necessities on 02.01.2006. The petitioner executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the loan amount within a period of three months. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 781823 dated 30.5.2006 for a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs drawn on Vysya Bank, Bidar branch, towards discharge o
In cheque dishonour cases, the burden of proof lies on the accused to rebut the presumption of issuance for a debt, emphasizing compensatory justice over punitive measures.
The court emphasized the need for uniformity in compensation for cheque dishonour cases, affirming that compensation should reflect the cheque amount and interest, as established in prior Supreme Cou....
The court ruled that the failure to rebut the legal presumption of debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act justifies conviction, with the sentence modified to compensation.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of dishonor of a cheque.
A single complaint is maintainable for multiple dishonoured cheques issued on the same cause of action, as established by the Supreme Court.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the presumption once the issuance of the cheque is established.
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence 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
