Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M.KHAZI, J
S Dhananjaya Naidu S/o Venkataramana Naidu – Appellant
Versus
J Dhamodhara Naidu, S/o J Gangam Naidu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging conviction for dishonoured cheques under n.i. act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. sale agreement and payment details between parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. accused argues against payment liability and presents counter-evidence. (Para 15) |
| 4. court’s obligation to review evidence and affirm lower court convictions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. details of the sale agreement and payment made. (Para 20) |
| 6. presumption under n.i. act and burden of proof on accused. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. final orders dismissing the petitions and affirming lower court’s ruling. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
J.M.KHAZI, J.
In these petitions filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, accused has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence of punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short "N.I.Act") by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeals filed by him.
2. In the criminal cases out of which these petitions have arisen, the complainant and accused are common. In all the cases the contention taken by the complainant and defence of the accused are same. They also involve common discussion and findings. Therefore, all the petition
The presumption of a legally recoverable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be rebutted by the accused through credible evidence, which was found lacking.
The court held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused bears the burden to rebut the presumption that a cheque was issued for a valid debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favor of the complainant, requiring the accused to provide contrary evidence to escape liability.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, issuance of a cheque creates a presumption of a legally enforceable debt, and the burden lies on the accused to disprove this, which was not done.
Dishonour of cheque – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
The court established that once a cheque is issued and signed, a legal presumption exists regarding its use for a valid debt, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to deny its validity.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the cheque's issuance for a legal liability, which was not s....
The issuance of a negotiable instrument establishes a presumption of liability, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the debt, as established by Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the case.
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
