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
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 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a bank established under the Society Registration Act 1979, having its head office at SDA Commercial Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla and a branch office at Chopal. It is engaged in banking activities. The accused applied for a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs on 02/01/2016. The complaint disbursed the loan to the accused, and the accused signed various documents to avail the loan. The accused failed t
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.
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....
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....
The accused's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the service of notice of dishonour within the prescribed period led to the Court upholding the conviction and the co....
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
