Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
V.SRISHANANDA, J
SRI. RAJASAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB DOTIHAL – Appellant
Versus
SRI. HULAGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA PUJAR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused convicted under section 138 for cheque default. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court confirms presumption under ni act unless rebutted. (Para 4 , 5 , 15) |
| 3. evidence must support claims of material alteration. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. fine reduced but conviction upheld. (Para 17) |
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Akarsh Mittalkod, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel for respondent.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
Act by contending that petitioner obtained hand loan in a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- for his legal necessity with a promise to repay the same within fifteen days and towards repayment, he issued cheque bearing No.528278 dated 18.09.2009 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Gangavathi Branch, which on presentation came to be dishonoured.
3.3 Complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and one Girish Kulkarni as a witness to establish that there was a loan transaction as PW.2. Complainant also got examined a witness from the Bank as PW3 in the light of the defence that has been taken by the accused that there is a material alteration in Ex.P1 by dishonoured cheque.
3.5 Thereafter,
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
