Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Bhupat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque for loan repayment dishonoured due to insufficient funds (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. presumption under sections 118, 139 ni act unrebutted (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. section 139 reverse onus on preponderance of probabilities (Para 8) |
| 4. complainant proved section 138 ingredients; no probable defence (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. security cheques attract section 138 on dishonour (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. all section 138 offence ingredients established (Para 13) |
| 7. limited revisional jurisdiction absent miscarriage of justice (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. revision dismissed; sentence and compensation upheld (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, H.P. in criminal complaint No.81 of 2021, whereby the learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (in short the "accused") guilty of having committed offence pun
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....
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.....
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....
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.
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.
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.
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
