Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Akshay Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
Anil Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal under ni act s.138. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial evidence and accused's security defence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial conviction reversed on probable committee security. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. parties' contentions on presumption and probability. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. witnesses corroborate blank security cheque. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. defence probable; uphold reasonable acquittal view. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. appeal dismissed with bail directions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Sirmour, at Nahan, (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 12.8.2011 and order of sentence dated 29.8.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Nahan, Sirmour, District at Nahan HP (learned Trial Court) were set-aside and the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the
In appeals against acquittal under NI Act s.138, High Court interferes only if perverse, misreads evidence, or sole guilt view possible; reasonable defence rebutting presumption warrants upholding ac....
Point of Law : Presumption Under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of p....
Point of law : Presumption Under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of p....
An appellate court reviewing a trial court's acquittal must respect the presumption of innocence unless the judgment demonstrates clear and manifest errors in the consideration of evidence.
The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt in a Section 138 NI Act case, and discrepancies in testimony can undermine the presumption of consideration.
In Section 138 NI Act acquittal appeal, interference only if trial court's probable acceptance of blank cheque misuse defence (post-wife's suicide) is perverse; presumption rebutted, no disturbance o....
The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused.
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
