Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Gramin Bank Paunta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding repayment and ots scheme. (Para 5 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. court's decision to consider merits due to lack of settlement. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. presumptions and legal implications under ni act. (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. confirmation of elements required under section 138. (Para 10 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. limitations of revisional jurisdiction in legal proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. dismissal of revision petition and order to serve sentence. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., lays challenge to judgment dated 05.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 15/19, titled Ashok Kumar Vs. Himachal Gramin Bank Paunta , affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.05.2019/17.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.22/2014, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, “accused”) guilty of having committed offenc
A mandatory presumption applies in dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to provide evidence to rebut the lawful liability for which a cheque was ....
Insufficient funds for a cheque issued to discharge a lawful liability establishes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which includes a statutory presumption that must be ....
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 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.
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....
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....
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 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....
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the accused fails to raise a probable defense or contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liab....
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.
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
