Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Nitin Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Narain Singh (deceased) through LRs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 22.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2024, titled Nitin Chauhan Vs. Narain Singh, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2022/19.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in complaint No.154/3 of 2016, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, “accused”) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law, alleging ther
A presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque exists under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to rebut it with a probable defense.
Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act not rebutted by unsubstantiated security cheque claim; such cheques enforceable under Section 138 on dishonour for insufficient funds if liability undischarg....
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains in favor of the holder unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut it.
Presumption under NI Act ss.118,139 rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities by probable defence; accused's unproved allegation of cheque amount misuse fails rebuttal. Revision jurisdiction limit....
A cheque issued as security can be subjected to Section 138 liabilities; presumption under Section 139 requires the accused to establish a probable defence for avoidance of conviction.
Failure to raise probable defence on preponderance of probabilities fails to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act; security cheques towards loan liability attract Section 138 upon dishonour.
Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act holds where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut lawful liability with evidence; security cheques enforceable if dishonoured due to default; no ....
The dishonour of a cheque and lack of payment under Section 138 establishes legal liability unless rebutted, with presumption favoring the holder of the cheque.
Dishonoured cheque attracts presumption of lawful debt under NI Act unless rebutted by accused on preponderance of probabilities; failure justifies conviction even for security cheque with subsisting....
Failure to rebut presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act by proving probable defence results in conviction under Section 138 for cheque dishonour, even if claimed as security; revisional jur....
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
