Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

Accused Failed to Rebut Presumption Under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act: Karnataka High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Modifies Sentence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Karnataka has delivered a pivotal judgment concerning the interpretation and enforcement of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). This section addresses the dishonor of cheques and has significant implications for financial transactions and legal liabilities.

The petitioner, V. Srinivas, was accused of failing to honor repayment commitments by issuing three dishonored cheques totaling Rs. 8,00,000/- to the respondent, V. Krishnamurthy. The cheques were presented and returned due to insufficient funds. Following the lower courts’ conviction and the affirmation by the appellate court, the petitioner sought revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging both the conviction and the severity of the sentence.

The court observed that the complainant convincingly proved the transaction’s legitimacy and the issuance of cheques. The petitioner’s defense, suggesting the loss of cheques and alleged misuse by the complainant, was deemed inconsistent and unconvincing.

The court highlighted that the accused did not successfully counter the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the holder’s entitlement and the absence of debt or liability. The judgment notes, “Accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act.”

The petitioner’s attempt to introduce new defenses, such as alleged violations of the Income Tax Act by the complainant, was rejected. The court emphasized that such claims were not grounds for acquittal under the N.I. Act.

The court dismissed the applicability of cited precedents favoring the accused, reinforcing that the complainant’s testimony and documentary evidence substantiated the claims against the petitioner.

Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed. The court upheld the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but modified the sentence. The imprisonment was set aside, opting instead for a fine of Rs. 16,00,000/-. The accused was given forty-five days to pay the fine or face a default sentence of six months.

Date of Decision: 8th April 2024.

Srinivas vs. V. Krishnamurthy

 

Similar News