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
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Akarsh Mittalkod, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.150/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’, for short) and ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,15,000/- of which sum of Rs.1,10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses of the State, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.17/2014.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1 A complaint came to be lodged alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act by contending that petitioner obtained hand loan in a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- for his legal necessit
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
