Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Issuance of Cheque Admitted, Statutory Presumption Favours Holder: Karnataka High Court Set-Aside Acquittal Under Section 138 of NI Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Karnataka High Court, in a recent judgment, has upheld the conviction of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for cheque dishonour. The bench led by Justice Anil B Katti set aside the First Appellate Court’s acquittal, reinstating the trial court’s verdict.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The crux of the judgment revolves around the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which operates in favor of the cheque holder once the issuance of the cheque and the signature of the accused are admitted.

Facts and Issues: The appellant, G.E. Ramesh, had filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of B.P. Umashankar, the respondent, in a cheque dishonour case. The cheque, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000, was issued by the respondent to discharge a legally enforceable debt for a paddy purchase but was dishonoured with the bank’s endorsement “Payment stopped by the drawer”.

Presumption of Debt: Citing judgments including “APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers” and “P. Rasiya vs. Abdul Nazer”, the court emphasized the statutory presumption in favor of the holder once the issuance of the cheque is admitted.

Defense of Lost Cheque: The respondent’s defense of losing the cheque and subsequent misuse by the appellant was scrutinized. The court observed the suspicious timing of the stop payment instruction and the filing of the lost cheque complaint, undermining the credibility of the respondent’s claim.

Reassessment of Evidence: The High Court reevaluated testimonies and documentary evidence, finding the respondent’s defense untenable. The court noted that the mere denial of the transaction by the accused does not suffice as a defense, referring to the “Rangappa Vs. Mohan” and “Anss Rajshekar Vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth” judgments.

Decision: The High Court convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,20,000, with Rs. 2,10,000 as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 10,000 as prosecution expenses. In default, simple imprisonment for 6 months was ordered.

Date of Decision: 09th February 2024

G.E. RAMESH VS B.P. UMASHANKAR

Latest Legal News