Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Kamlesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonoured due to insufficient funds triggers section 138. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. non-compliance with interim order; proceed on merits. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. no denial of cheque issuance; presumption under sections 118/139 applies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. probable defence on preponderance rebuts section 139 presumption. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. complainant proved all section 138 ingredients and documents. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. limited revisional jurisdiction; no re-appreciation of evidence. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. concurrent judgments upheld; revision petition dismissed. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.48/2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in criminal complaint No.154/2021, whereby the learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (in short the "accused") guilty of having committed offence punishable unde
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 sustains presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act regarding cheque for lawful debt; revisional court upholds concurrent conviction absent miscarriage of justice.....
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 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 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....
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.
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 ....
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
