Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Mohinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Tirath Ram – Respondent
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 16.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024, titled Mohinder Singh Vs. Tirath Ram , affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal complaint No.932-I/2015, 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 two years and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- 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 therein accused herein, who was his fast friend and raised loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Branch Jari.
Cheques issued in discharge of a lawful liability create a presumption of guilt under Section 138, which the accused must rebut to avoid conviction.
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....
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 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 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 ....
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 ....
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 dishonour of a cheque and lack of payment under Section 138 establishes legal liability unless rebutted, with presumption favoring the holder of the cheque.
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 ....
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
