MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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

Similar News