Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Inderjeet – Appellant
Versus
Kishan Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 07 12.2022 and order of sentence dated 25.03.2023
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, L&S at Kullu, H.P (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 accused and the complainant were known to each other. The accused borrowed Rs. 9,00,000/- from the complainant in July, 2011. He agreed to repay the amount in October, 2012. The complainant demanded the money, and the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 9,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Bhuntar, in the complainant’s favour. The complainant presented the cheque before the bank for realization but it wa
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....
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.
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent conviction under NI Act S.138 absent perversity; presumption of debt under S.139 holds on signature admission unless rebutted by proba....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must provide evidence to counter it; failure to do so results in conviction.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
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
