Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Sh. Bhagirath – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.3-AK/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No.217/3 of 2018, whereby the learned Court below, 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 six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter "complainant").
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law, alleging therein that accused applied for loan amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant’s bank and loan wa
Failure to raise probable defence sustains presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act regarding cheque for lawful debt; revisional court upholds concurrent conviction absent miscarriage of justice.....
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....
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.
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....
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....
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 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.
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....
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 ....
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.
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
