Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
New Shilpi Jewellers through its Partner Pankaj Chauhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.9.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.5.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court) were upheld (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a partner of M/s Shilpi Jewellers. The accused purchased gold worth Rs.1,84,000/- from the complainant on 8.11.2019 vide Invoice No. 1227. He issued a cheque of Rs.1,84,000/- (Ex.C2), drawn on State Bank of India, to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; unregistered firm competent for s138 NI Act complaint; ss118/139 presumptions arise on cheque admission, rebuttable by evidence; subsequent payments do ....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity. NI Act presumptions u/ss 118,139 arise on cheque admission; accused must rebut with evidence. No initial complainant ....
Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arise on implicit admission of cheque issuance via cross-examination; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limi....
Admission of cheque issuance raises presumption of liability under NI Act Ss.118/139; rebuttal requires evidence beyond CrPC 313 denial. Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence....
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a dishonoured cheque establishes a presumption of liability that the accused must rebut; mere denial is insufficient in the absence of evidence.
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
