Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Deepak Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and order dated 05.04.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, 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 Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused asked for a loan of Rs. 4 lacs from the complainant for domestic purposes. He promised to pay the amount on or before 25.12.2015. An agreement was executed between the parties regarding the transaction. The complainant asked the accused to return the money, however, the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs drawn on the State Bank of India, Branch Deha Tehsil Theog. The complainant presented the cheque before his banker, the UCO Bank Br
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
The presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's issuance is admitted, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt, shifting the burd....
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the cheque's issuance for a legal liability, which was not s....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharging a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is strong and can only be rebutted by substantial evidence, which the accused failed to provide.
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 ....
Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arise on implicit admission of cheque issuance via cross-examination; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limi....
The presumption of liability under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise.
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
