Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Rajinder Kumar Bushehri Shyama Nand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Shyama Nand Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Cr MP N. 1096 of 2026
1. For the reasons stated in the application for early hearing, same is allowed. The application is disposed of.
Cr. R No.768 of 2024
2. Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 20.8.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.51-S/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2024, in Criminal Case No. 900436 of 2015 (CNR No.HPSH110010452015), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No-3, Shimla, District Shimla, 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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the complainant. Learned trial Court further ordered that in default of payment of fine/compensation amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respon
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 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....
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....
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....
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.
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.
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.
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....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid unless a credible defense is presented, and dishonor of a cheque issued as security can lead to conviction un....
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
