Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Ajay Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 25.4.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.10-K/X/2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.1.2023/17.2.2023, in complaint No. 38-III/2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner- 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 six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the complainant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused borrowed sum of Rs. 6.5 lakh from him for business purpose, which was received by him through six cheques amounting to Rs. 2.00 lakh, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1.5 lakh, Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- and Rs.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, placing the burden of proof on the accused to establish a probable defence against dishonour of a cheque.
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.
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....
Statutory presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act not rebutted by accused's unproved security cheque claim; even security for loan debt attracts Section 138 conviction on dishonour; no revisional i....
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....
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.
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 unless rebutted by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; High Court in revision refrains from re-appreciating evidence absent perversity ....
Accused failing to raise probable defence on preponderance of probabilities cannot rebut Section 139 presumption in cheque dishonour cases; revisional court upholds concurrent conviction absent misca....
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
