Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Gillu @ Gulab Chand – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.5.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.9.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (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 parties were known to each other. The accused needed money, and he approached the complainant in June 2015. The accused agreed to sell his land measuring 0-01-61 hectares, being 161/2310 share comprised in Khasra No. 475, situated at Mohal Karasu, to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.8.00 lac
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.
Presumption under NI Act Sections 118/139 arises on cheque issuance admission; security cheque attracts Section 138 liability if debt exists; not rebutted here. Revisional jurisdiction limited to per....
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arises on cheque execution admission; accused must rebut by evidence, not mere Section 313 statement. Security cheque liable if debt exists. Revisiona....
Section 139 NI Act presumption of liability rebuttable by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; contradictory accused pleas and non-examination of witness fail rebuttal; revisional juri....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption under NI Act ss.118(a),139 of debt discharge; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Revisional jurisdiction bars reappreciation absent pe....
Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence absent perversity; NI Act presumption u/s 139 rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities, accused's uncorroborated denial insufficient; notice returne....
Admission of cheque signature triggers presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of debt discharge; security cheques attract Section 138 liability on dishonour; accused must rebut with evidenc....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers Section 139 presumption of debt discharge, rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; uncorroborated security claim fails rebuttal; r....
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 ....
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....
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
