Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
The principles stated
in the decision of Krishna Janardhan Bhat (Supra)
was referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
High Court in number of subsequent decisions. The
principles stated in that decision has no application to
the evidence and facts of this case. Therefore, that
decisions in no way help the accused. In the light of the
principles stated in the above referred decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the present appeal, the
judgment and evidence placed on record are considered
then it is evident that the complainant has proved by
legally admissible evidence that the accused has
31
borrowed loan of Rs.9,80,000/- and issued cheque -
Ex.P.1 in discharge of the said debt or liability which is
legally recoverable. The accused has failed to rebut
statutory presumption in favour of complainant. The
Trial Court has not appreciated the principles stated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the cases
under Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly cheque
bounce case. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the burden of proof and drawing presumption. Only on
untenable contentions and evidence, the Trial Court has
acquitted the accused. Therefore, the judgment of the
Trial Court is illegal, perverse and needs interference by
this Court and liable to be set aside.
Veerayya vs G K Madivalar on 30 November, 2011
25. Therefore, the findings of the learned Trial
Court that the complainant has failed to prove the debt
and the accused has substantiated his defence by
preponderance of probability is totally illegal, perverse
and not based on the evidence on record or the settled
principles regarding appreciation of evidence. The
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
accused reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057 in the case of
Veerayya vs. G. K. Madivalar, the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325
30
in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs
Dattatraya G. Hegde and another decision reported in
ILR 2008 KAR 4629 in the case of Shiva Murthy vs
Amruthraj will not help the accused in any way. In the
decision of this Court referred by the accused counsel,
in that case the suit filed for recovery of cheque amount
which was dismissed. Whether the complaint was
premature or not was in question.
Shiva Murthy vs Amruthraj on 27 June, 2008
25. Therefore, the findings of the learned Trial
Court that the complainant has failed to prove the debt
and the accused has substantiated his defence by
preponderance of probability is totally illegal, perverse
and not based on the evidence on record or the settled
principles regarding appreciation of evidence. The
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
accused reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057 in the case of
Veerayya vs. G. K. Madivalar, the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325
30
in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs
Dattatraya G. Hegde and another decision reported in
ILR 2008 KAR 4629 in the case of Shiva Murthy vs
Amruthraj will not help the accused in any way. In the
decision of this Court referred by the accused counsel,
in that case the suit filed for recovery of cheque amount
which was dismissed. Whether the complaint was
premature or not was in question.
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S. Aps Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Shakti International Fashion Linkers & ... on 20 April, 2018
19. The learned counsel for the appellant has
also relied upon another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 in the
case of APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. Shakti
International Fashion Linkers and others at Para
No.7 it is held as under:-
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
"36. The proposition of law which emerges
from the judgments referred to above is that
the onus to rebut the presumption under
Section 139 that the cheque has been issued
in discharge of a debt or liability is on the
accused and the fact that the cheque might be
post dated does not absolve the drawer of a
cheque of the penal consequences of Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Sri. H G Nagaraja vs Sri. H Suresh Naika on 12 September, 2019
20. The learned counsel also relied upon the
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court
reported in 2019 (4) AKR 562 in the case of H. G.
Nagaraja vs. H. Suresh Naika, at Para Nos.8, 9, 10
and 11, it is held as under:-