Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Failed To Prove Capacity to Tender Loan: High Court Acquits Accused U/S 138 of N.I. Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has overturned the conviction of an accused in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case, registered as "CRL.RP NO.573 OF 2019," saw the accused being acquitted after the High Court found 'gross miscarriage of justice' in the decisions of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.

The case revolved around a cheque of Rs.4,15,000, which was dishonoured with the endorsement "Payment Stopped." The complainant had alleged that this amount was a hand loan to the accused, a claim consistently denied by the accused, who contended that the cheque had been stolen by his sister.

In her judgment, the Hon'ble Ms. Justice J.M. Khazi noted the failure of the complainant to prove the signature on the cheque and questioned the financial capacity of the complainant to lend such an amount. The judgment emphasized, "It was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the signature in the cheque is that of accused," highlighting the complainant's failure in this critical aspect.

Furthermore, the court observed that the complainant did not prove his financial capacity to lend Rs.4,15,000, stating, "The complainant has not only failed to prove that the subject cheque bears the signature of the accused and also that at the relevant point of time he had sufficient income to lend a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- to the accused."

The High Court's decision to set aside the lower courts' judgments reflects a critical reassessment of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case. The accused was acquitted, and his bail bond was discharged. In a note of appreciation, the court acknowledged the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, fixing their fee at Rs.5,000/-, payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee.

DATED: 18 January, 2024

SRI H R SHESHADRI VS SRI U V NATARAJ

 

Similar News