Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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