UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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