Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kewal Ram – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. conviction and judgment by trial and appellate courts. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments by the accused and respondent. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's observations on jurisdiction and evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. presumptions under ni act and burden of proof. (Para 19 , 21 , 23) |
| 6. deterrent nature of sentencing and compensation. (Para 36 , 38) |
| 7. final decision and dismissal of the revision. (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, HP (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
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a dishonoured cheque establishes a presumption of liability that the accused must rebut; mere denial is insufficient in the absence of evidence.
Admission of cheque execution raises presumptions under NI Act Sections 118(a) & 139 of consideration and liability discharge; accused must rebut with evidence. Revisional court under CrPC Section 39....
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....
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....
Admission of cheque issuance raises presumption of liability under NI Act Ss.118/139; rebuttal requires evidence beyond CrPC 313 denial. Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, not reappreciating evidence. Section 139 NI Act presumption of debt from admitted cheque issuance rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance o....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption of debt under NI Act ss118(a),139; accused's lost cheque plea fails without bank report; revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, upholding conc....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; presumption under NI Act Sections 118,139 not rebutted by mere denial or police report without bank intimation; concurrent findings upheld where defence....
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 ....
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
