Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dile Ram – Appellant
Versus
Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, through Its Branch Manager – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First ClassManali, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. It was asserted that the complainant is a body corporate having its head office at Dharamshala and Branch at Manali. It is engaged in the business of banking. The accused raised a loan from the complainant and issued a cheque dated 22.10.2007 for an amount of Rs. 1 lac to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque before the bank of the accused, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The complainant issued a no
The absence of the company as a party precludes the vicarious liability of its directors under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent conviction under NI Act S.138 absent perversity; presumption of debt under S.139 holds on signature admission unless rebutted by proba....
Dishonour of cheque – Company/Firm is a necessary party where offence has been committed on behalf of Company/Firm.
The case established the importance of specific allegations and the requirement to arraign the company as an accused in matters of vicarious liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity. NI Act presumptions u/ss 118,139 arise on cheque admission; accused must rebut with evidence. No initial complainant ....
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
