Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Dinesh Negi – Appellant
Versus
Sahil Sood – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Petitioner-Dinesh Negi has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition, against the judgment, dated 29th December, 2021, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), passed in Criminal Appeal No. 29-S/10 of 2020, titled as Dinesh Negi versus Sahil Sood.
2. Vide judgment, dated 29th December, 2021, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 29th February, 2020, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 538-3 of 2012, titled as Sahil Sood versus Dinesh Negi.
3. By virtue of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties,
The court modified the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act from imprisonment to 'till the rising of the Court' based on the deposit of compensation and principles of justice.
The presumption of a debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act is a significant legal principle, which places the burden on the accused to prove the contrary when a cheque is dishonored.
The court confirmed that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions once the complainant establishes a prima facie case under the N.I. Act.
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 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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, no reappreciation absent perversity; presumption of debt under NI Act holds post cheque admission unless robustly rebutted; security cheques attract ....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of dishonor of a cheque.
Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interfer....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the presumption once the issuance of the cheque is established.
The compensatory nature of proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and the court's authority to modify the sentence and compensation amount based on relevant legal provisions.
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
