Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
J.M.KHAZI, J
SMT. KOMALA W/O K VIJEKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SMT. KALA K W/O SRI RANGANATHA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal under section 138 of n.i. act. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. complainant's failure to meet the burden of proof. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. evidence of financial capacity unconvincing. (Para 12 , 25) |
| 4. presumption of liability is rebuttable by the accused. (Para 15 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3.1 It is further case of the complainant that accused also started Honey X-Mas Benefit Scheme. In order to run the said scheme, accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.4,50,000/- during December 2012. Again accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- during December 2013. She promised to repay the same along with the chit amount as early as possible.
3.3 Accused failed to pay the amount due. When demanded accused promised to pay the amount as early as possible. She was due in a total sum of Rs.35 lakhs. In this regard accused has executed a hand loan agreement dated 14 11.2014 for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs. On the same day she gave a post dated 02.01.2015 cheque for Rs.35 lakhs and assured prompt payment. However, when complainant presented the cheque for realization, it was dishonoured on the ground "Funds i
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
