Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30769 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

Amit Jhunjhunwala vs State Of West Bengal And Another on 30 June, 2025

28. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the key legal principle that emerges from this case, particularly for matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is quite clear. Once the complainant successfully shows the cheque was issued and then dishonoured -- which automatically activates the strong presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 (and, as Rangappa v. Sri Mohan clarified, this includes the presumption of a legally enforceable debt) -- the burden then definitively shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. This isn't a light burden, but it's a real one. A simple denial, remaining silent, or even avoiding proper cross-examination of the complainant's 18 witnesses isn't enough to shake these presumptions. When an accused consciously avoids challenging the complainant's evidence through effective cross-examination and fails to present any credible defence or alternative explanation, those statutory presumptions stand unrebutted. In such circumstances, the complainant's initial case, which was prima facie strong, effectively becomes conclusive proof, fully justifying a conviction. This is especially true when other facts, like the issuance of multiple consecutive cheques, further support the complainant's claim. While the accused only needs to show a 'preponderance of probabilities' for their defence, it demands a real, demonstrable effort to raise a probable doubt about the debt's existence, an effort conspicuously missing here.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Jhunjhunwala vs State Of West Bengal And Another on 30 June, 2025

28. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the key legal principle that emerges from this case, particularly for matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is quite clear. Once the complainant successfully shows the cheque was issued and then dishonoured -- which automatically activates the strong presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 (and, as Rangappa v. Sri Mohan clarified, this includes the presumption of a legally enforceable debt) -- the burden then definitively shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. This isn't a light burden, but it's a real one. A simple denial, remaining silent, or even avoiding proper cross-examination of the complainant's 18 witnesses isn't enough to shake these presumptions. When an accused consciously avoids challenging the complainant's evidence through effective cross-examination and fails to present any credible defence or alternative explanation, those statutory presumptions stand unrebutted. In such circumstances, the complainant's initial case, which was prima facie strong, effectively becomes conclusive proof, fully justifying a conviction. This is especially true when other facts, like the issuance of multiple consecutive cheques, further support the complainant's claim. While the accused only needs to show a 'preponderance of probabilities' for their defence, it demands a real, demonstrable effort to raise a probable doubt about the debt's existence, an effort conspicuously missing here.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Sushil Kumar on 30 August, 2024

In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Supreme Court ruled on two important aspects: (a) the presumption mandated by Section 139 does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability but this is a rebuttable presumption and the accused can raise a defence contesting the debt or liability albeit the initial presumption favours the complainant; and (b) reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden and therefore, when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities' and if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates a doubt on the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, prosecution can fail and in doing so, accused can rely on material submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases, the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. Relevant passages are as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Sri.K.V.Ravindra vs Sri.Dinakaran.K on 7 March, 2023

The Learned Defense Counsel also relied the judgment reported by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 , wherein also by relying the earlier verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan held that, ' if the accused raised probable defense and established the same on preponderance of probabilities and 35 C.C.7752/2018 questioned the alleged transaction as well as the financial capacity of the complainant to lend the alleged loan amount, under such circumstances, the onus again shifts on the complainant to prove the case on beyond all reasonable doubts and also his financial capacity to lend the disputed loan amount.' In the instant case on hand, when the accused has failed to raise probable defense and prove the same on the touch stone of the preponderance of probabilities, the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa is not applicable to the case on hand in order to acquit the accused, but the law laid down in the said judgment is commonly applicable to all the proceedings for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. The Learned Prosecuting Counsel also relied recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022(3) AKR 381, with due respect to the ratio of this judgment, this principle of law is applicable to the case on hand wherein it is held that, ' Once the accused has 36 C.C.7752/2018 admitted his signature and cheque, the legal presumption shall go in favour of the complainant'. The Learned Prosecuting Counsel relied another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 wherein also the Hon'ble Apex Court pleased to held that, ' once the accused admits signature and cheque, the presumption goes in favour of the complainant that there is a existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. The plea of accused that, cheque was given by way of security and the same has been misused by the complainant complainant and accused is liable to be convicted'. In the present case on hand also, the accused took the same defense contending that, while availing loan of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant, the disputed cheques of both the cases and DP note at Ex.P.6 was taken from him by the accused and after repayment of the said loan amount, the cheques and DP note s was not at all returned. In order to substantiate this contention, except his self serving testimony, the 37 C.C.7752/2018 accused did not produce any iota of evidence. That apart, as per the evidence of accused, when he has repaid the loan amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant, what had prevented him to take steps to get back his signed blank cheques and signed blank DP notes. Even, he did not lodge any complaint before any jurisdictional police against the complainant for the alleged misusing of his cheques and DP notes. On the other hand, the oral evidence of PW.1 very much corroborates the substantive evidence of PW.1 and during his cross examination, nothing has been suggested with regard to the defense taken by the accused. Thus, from his oral evidence coupled with the documents produced at Ex.D.1 to 7 and also considering the material evidence found during the cross examination of DW.1, I am of the considered opinion that, the accused has failed to raise probable defense and thereby also failed to prove the same on preponderance of probabilities. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.K.V.Ravindra vs Sri.Dinakaran.K on 7 March, 2023

The Learned Defense Counsel also relied the judgment reported by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 , wherein also by relying the earlier verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan held that, ' if the accused raised probable defense and established the same on preponderance of probabilities and questioned the alleged transaction as well as the financial capacity of the complainant to lend the alleged loan amount, under such circumstances, the onus again shifts 31 C.C. 10239/2018 on the complainant to prove the case on beyond all reasonable doubts and also his financial capacity to lend the disputed loan amount.' In the instant case on hand, when the accused has failed to raise probable defense and prove the same on the touch stone of the preponderance of probabilities, the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa is not applicable to the case on hand in order to acquit the accused, but the law laid down in the said judgment is commonly applicable to all the proceedings for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. The Learned Prosecuting Counsel also relied recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022(3) AKR 381, with due respect to the ratio of this judgment, this principle of law is applicable to the case on hand wherein it is held that, ' Once the accused has admitted his signature and cheque, the legal presumption shall go in favour of the complainant'. The Learned Prosecuting Counsel relied another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 wherein also the 32 C.C. 10239/2018 Hon'ble Apex Court pleased to held that, ' once the accused admits signature and cheque, the presumption goes in favour of the complainant that there is a existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. The plea of accused that, cheque was given by way of security and the same has been misused by the complainant complainant and accused is liable to be convicted'. In the present case on hand also, the accused took the same defense contending that, while availing loan of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant, the disputed cheques of both the cases and DP note at Ex.P.6 was taken from him by the accused and after repayment of the said loan amount, the cheques and DP note s was not at all returned. In order to substantiate this contention, except his self serving testimony, the accused did not produce any iota of evidence. That apart, as per the evidence of accused, when he has repaid the loan amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant, what had prevented him to take steps to get back his signed blank cheques and signed blank DP notes. Even, he did not lodge 33 C.C. 10239/2018 any complaint before any jurisdictional police against the complainant for the alleged misusing of his cheques and DP notes. On the other hand, the oral evidence of PW.1 very much corroborates the substantive evidence of DW.1 and during his cross examination, nothing has been suggested with regard to the defense taken by the accused. Thus, from his oral evidence coupled with the documents produced at Ex.D.1 to 7 and also considering the material evidence found during the cross examination of DW.1, I am of the considered opinion that, the accused has failed to raise probable defense and thereby also failed to prove the same on preponderance of probabilities. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. H. Hombaiah vs Smt. G. Susheela on 13 February, 2023

21. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further referred to the decision of Rangappa v. Sri. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 and considered the evidence on record and held that the complainant could not prove the source of income from which the alleged loan was paid to the appellant, presumption stood rebutted and relied on paras 9, 10 and 11 as under:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P N Desai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next