Back
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vikas Verma – Appellant
Versus
Ashutosh Soni – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the complaint and proceedings (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court's findings and evidence presented (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments presented by parties (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal standards for revisional jurisdiction (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. requirement of issuing cheque by the accused (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. conclusion and order of acquittal (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition against the judgment dated 21.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner (appellant before the learned First Appellate Court) was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Class, Court No.II, Una, District Una (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 prese
For conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the accused. Insufficient connection leads to invalid liability.
Dishonour of cheque – If cheque is drawn not on account maintained by accused but by some other person, same will not attract provisions of Section 138 of NI Act.
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....
NI Act s.139 presumption rebutted by evidence of prior unpaid loans, pending litigations, and improbability of further advance; revisional jurisdiction under CrPC s.397 limited to perversity or ignor....
In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut presumption of debt with evidence, rejecting unsupported secu....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
Admission of cheque signature raises NI Act presumptions of debt discharge (ss.118(a),139); accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Security/blank signed cheques attract s.138 liability de....
The presumption of dishonor under Section 138 can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the existence of enforceable debt.
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
