Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.32 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
In another decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three
Judges Bench Decision reported in (2010) 11
SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri.
Mohan ., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "
Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan And Another on 17 December, 2018
In
another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India
decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019
dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of
India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder
Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that, " Dishonor of cheque -
Statutory presumption under - burden to prove -
the burden is on the accused to rebut the
presumption that the cheque was issued not for
any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that
the cheque may have been filled in by any
person other than the drawer, if the cheque is
duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque
41 C.C.No.17108/2016 J
leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the
accused which is towards some payment, would
attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the
accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for
an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In such
circumstances even if it is assumed that, Accused
has not written the contents of the cheque in
question in such circumstances also in view of the
principles of law laid down in the above decision that
itself would not invalidates the cheque in question
and it can be presumed that, the said cheque has
been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable
debt.
Sri Yogesh Poojary vs Sri K Shankara Bhat on 20 November, 2018
21. The learned counsel for the defence has
also argued that the complainant has admitted in
his cross-examination that, he has not disclosed or
declared the alleged loan amount lend to the
Accused in his income tax returns, hence it goes to
show that, the complainant has not lent the alleged
loan amount to the Accused and also has no source
of income as on the date of alleged lending of loan
amount to the Accused and the complaint is liable
to be dismissed. It is true that, the complainant in
his cross-examination admitted that, he has not
disclosed about lending of loan amount to the
Accused in his I.T. Returns, but mere non
declaration of the loan transaction in question in
income tax returns could by itself invalidates the
transaction or not is to be taken into consideration.
In this regard, it is necessary here to refer the
decision of our Hon'ble High court of Karnataka
reported in 2019(1) Kar. L.R.185 in the case of
Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat in
the said case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
28 C.C.No.17108/2016 J
held that " Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Sections 138 and 139 -Endorsement 'payment
stopped by drawer' - The trial court in the
instant case, merely considered a suggestion
made from the Accused side in the cross-
examination of PW-1 that the complainant was
an income tax assessee and that he has not
declared the alleged loan transaction in his
returns and disbelieved the case of the
complainant that too, ignoring that legal
presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act,
was operating in favour of the complainant- For
these reasons, it has to be held that the
complainant has beyond reasonable doubt
proved the guilt of the Accused punishable
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As such, the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the
trial court deserves to be set aside and
respondent/Accused is liable to be convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act. Hence in view of the principles of law laid
down by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in the
above referred decision, in the present case also the
complainant admitted that, he has not declared the
29 C.C.No.17108/2016 J
loan transaction in question in his I.T. Returns but
as it is already held that, the complainant has
discharged his primary burden by complying the
mandatory provisions of Sec.138 of N.I. Act,
therefore it is for the accused to rebut the
presumption existing infavour of the complainant
U/s.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore,
the admissions of the complainant with regard to
non declaration of loan transaction in I.T. Returns
for the concerned year could not by itself draw an
adverse inference and to hold that, there was no
existence of legally enforceable debt or the
presumption as envisaged U/s.139 of N.I.Act is
successfully rebutted by the accused.
H.S. Srinivasa vs Girijamma And Ors. on 27 March, 2006
In this
regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR
2006 KAR 2054 in the case of H.S.Srinivasa Vs.
Girijamma and another wherein the Hon'ble High
Court held that " a reading of sec.20 of the act
33 C.C.No.17108/2016 J
which is extracted above reveals that, the words
used are ' either wholly blank or having written
therein an incomplete negotiable instrument'.
The instrument may be wholly blank or
incomplete in a particular in either case, the
holder has authority to make or complete the
instrument as a negotiable one. The authority
implied by a signature to a blank instrument is
so vide that, the party so signing is bound to be
a holder in due course. Promissory notes are
often executed in the name of the payer and left
unfilled to be afterwards filled by the actual
holder, the object being to enable the owner to
pass it off to another without incurring the
responsibility as an endorser. Thus, it is seen
that, person in possession of an incomplete
instrument in maternal particulars has the
authority prima facie to fill it and thus the
executants becomes liable to pay the amount
due'.
R Mallikarjuna vs H R Sadashivaiah on 18 June, 2008
-body of cheque was not written by Accused -
held it is not mandatory and no law prescribes
that, the body of cheque should also be written
by the signatory to the cheque, a cheque could
be filled up anybody and if it is signed by the
account holder of the cheque'. In another decision
of Hon'ble Apex court to India reported in (2002) 7
SCC in the case of P.K. Manmadhan Karthra
Vs.Sanjeeva Raj., wherein it is held that " As long
as signature on the cheque is admitted, whether
the ink with which the other particulars are
filled up is different or that the hand writing is
not that of drawer does not matter. Until
rebutted, the presumption that, cheque was
issued for consideration exists". In another
decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in a case of Crl. Appeal No. 1664/2003
C/w. Crl.Appeal No.1663/2003 dated: 18.6.2008
in the case of R.Mallikarjuna Vs.
H.R.Sadashivaiah wherein the Hon'ble High Court
at para No.19 held that " But, the question is,
whether that renders instrument unenforceable.
S.R. Muralidar vs Ashok G.Y. on 17 April, 2001
In this regard, it must be observed that, this
court similar circumstances in the case of S.R.
35 C.C.No.17108/2016 J
Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y. reported in 3001 (4)
KAR. LJ K. 122 referring to the provisions of
Sections 20, 138, 139, and 140 of the Act and
after interpreting alteration and filling up of the
cheque observed thus " The trial court has
made much about the difference in ink.
Admittedly, Accused cheque is issued bearing
signature of the Accused. It is the contention of
the defence that, blank cheques issued for the
business transactions have been illegally
converted as a subject matter to this case
fastening false liability........ It is not
objectionable or illegal in law to receive a
inchoate negotiable instrument duly signed by
the maker despite the material particulars are
kept blank if done with an understanding and
giving full authority to the payee to fill up the
material contents as agreed upon. Such a course
of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction
nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument
issued and such transaction fully begins the
maker of the negotiable instrument to the extent
it purports to declare........ The fact that, a
document executed is inchoate with regard to
36 C.C.No.17108/2016 J
some of the material particulars would not
render such contract invalid nor make the
instrument illegal or inadmissible. Voluntarily,
if a person were to deliver an inchoate
instrument authorizing the receiver to fill up
the material contents as agreed upon, the
cheque does not get tainted as in admissible nor
it amounts to tampering with the material
particulars...... In the present case there is no
categorical defence version, it is only by
conjunctures and surmises, a case is made out
from the difference in ink between the signature
of the cheque and the other handwritten
contents.