Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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