Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Vikram Singh alias Gantu Ram – Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonoured post-loan; s.138 conviction affirmed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal aid appointed for absent petitioner. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. presumption u/s 118/139 not rebutted by accused. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. probable defence rebuts ni act presumption. (Para 10) |
| 5. security cheques attract s.138 ni act. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. revisional jurisdiction limits evidence re-appreciation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. concurrent findings upheld; revision dismissed. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Jogindernagar) in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2024 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.50 of 2019, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused ( for short ‘accused’) guilty of his having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable 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 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....
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....
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 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 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 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.
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.....
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
