Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Surender
A. Suryanarayana – Appellant
Versus
U. Narasinga Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
Criminal Appeal Nos.505 and 512 of 2018 are filed by the appellant questioning the judgments dated 31.10.2017 passed in C.C.Nos.357 and 358 of 2016 respectively by the learned XXIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the respondent No.1/accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act, 1881’).
2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same, hence, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.
3. The case of the appellant-complainant is that he got acquainted with the respondent No.1/accused through one G. Ramlal, S/o G. Krishnaji, who is a relative of the appellant. In December 2013, the respondent No.1/accused, along with his two sons namely Mr. Ashish and Sanketh and G. Ramlal, approached the appellant and requested to lend an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose of developing their business. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was advanced to the respondent No.1/accused, who executed a receipt in favor of the complainant. Subsequently, towards repayment of the loan amount, the respondent No.1/accused issued two cheques to th
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and proving non-existence of a debt requires more than mere denial; evidence supporting the claim must exist.
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act can be rebutted by the accused through evidence demonstrating non-existence of legal debt or liability, relying on preponderance of probab....
The court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through a preponderance of probabilities, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defe....
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
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
