Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Narinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Salochna Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.) :
The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 28.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The 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 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short N.I.Act). It was asserted in the complaint that the accused is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of land. He came to know that the complainant intended to purchase land at Amb. He contacted the complainant and told her that he had a plot in the heart of the Amb. The accused showed the plot to the complainant on 02.04.2025 and told her that he was the owner of the plot. The sale consideration is settled as Rs.25,00,
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 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 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.
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....
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 liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must provide evidence to counter it; failure to do so results in 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
