.

---

🟢 TOP 10 ACQUITTAL-SIDE (DEFENCE FRIENDLY) JUDGMENTS

These cases strengthen defence strategy, rebut presumption, procedural safeguards.

---

1️⃣ Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008)

• Presumption under S.139 is rebuttable.

• Accused need not prove defence beyond reasonable doubt.

• Standard: preponderance of probability.

• Helped defence jurisprudence.

---

2️⃣ Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019)

• Detailed law on rebuttal of presumption.

• Accused can rely on complainant’s own evidence.

• Financial capacity of complainant can be questioned.

---

3️⃣ Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009)

• Mere presumption does not dispense with proof.

• Accused can rebut through circumstantial evidence.

---

4️⃣ M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006)

• If accused proves probable defence, burden shifts back.

• Importance of legally enforceable debt.

---

5️⃣ Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (2014)

• Cheque issued for advance payment (no existing debt) → No S.138 offence.

---

6️⃣ Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014)

• Territorial jurisdiction restricted to drawee bank location (later diluted by amendment).

• Led to many complaints dismissed/returned.

---

7️⃣ John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014)

• Complainant must prove source of funds.

• Financial capacity relevant.

---

8️⃣ Vijay v. Laxman (2013)

• Material inconsistencies benefit accused.

---

9️⃣ Shivamurthy v. Amruthraj (2008)

• Failure to prove legally enforceable debt → Acquittal.

---

🔟 Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth (2020)

• Cheque as security → Requires proof of crystallized liability.

---

🔴 TOP 10 CONVICTION-SIDE (COMPLAINANT FRIENDLY) JUDGMENTS

These strengthened presumption and conviction rate.

---

1️⃣ Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010)

• Presumption includes legally enforceable debt.

• Overruled restrictive reading of Krishna Janardhan Bhat.

---

2️⃣ Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019)

• Blank signed cheque valid.

• Even if filled by complainant → Presumption applies.

---

3️⃣ APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers (2020)

• Mere denial insufficient.

• Strong presumption under S.139.

---

4️⃣ T. Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari (2015)

• Signature admitted → Presumption strong.

---

5️⃣ Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021)

• Once cheque & signature admitted → burden heavy on accused.

---

6️⃣ ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer (2002)

• Guarantor cheque also covered under S.138.

---

7️⃣ Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012)

• “Account closed”, “payment stopped” also covered.

---

8️⃣ C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007)

• Notice deemed served if sent to correct address.

---

9️⃣ Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001)

• Presumption is mandatory (shall presume).

---

🔟 N. Parameswaran Unni v. G. Kannan (2017)

• Presentation of cheque within validity period clarified.

---

⚖️ Quick Comparative Insight (For Judicial Exams)