Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARM
Dhrvu Varma – Appellant
Versus
J K Varma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and conviction details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's defense arguments (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis and findings on the evidence (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. conclusion and order of the court (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. By way of these three revision petitions, the petitioner has assailed his conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter 'NI Act'], in Complaint Cases Nos. 669/1/2007, 670/1/2007 and 671/1/2007, wherein the petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 11.10.2012 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2012, by the learned MM-02 (NI Act), South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter 'Trial Court'], which were upheld by way of the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 18, 19 and 20 of 2014 by the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, Delhi [hereafter 'Appellate Court'].
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaints filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are as follows:
Cheques issued under Section 138 of the NI Act create a presumption of legally enforceable liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would arise when the signatures on the cheques had been admitted, and the burden to rebut the ....
NI Act s.139 presumption rebutted by evidence of prior unpaid loans, pending litigations, and improbability of further advance; revisional jurisdiction under CrPC s.397 limited to perversity or ignor....
In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut presumption of debt with evidence, rejecting unsupported secu....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if debt subsists; accused must lead evide....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118(a), 139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if subsisting debt exists; revisional....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption under Sections 118(a),139 NI Act of enforceable debt; security cheque liable under Section 138 if subsisting liability exists; accused fails to rebut by prepo....
Cheques issued in discharge of a lawful liability create a presumption of guilt under Section 138, which the accused must rebut to avoid conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
