Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Inderjeet – Appellant
Versus
Kishan Chand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque issued for loan repayment, dishonoured; signature denied. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. lower courts applied unrebutted s.138 presumption. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. prematurity plea rejected as not raised earlier. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. s.138 offence requires five sequential ingredients. (Para 18) |
| 6. loan proved by bank withdrawal statement. (Para 19) |
| 7. cross-suggestion admits cheque issuance. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. ss.118/139 presumptions unrebutted by accused. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 34) |
| 9. no receipt/itr needed due to presumption. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. bank memo presumes insufficient funds dishonour. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 11. refusal endorsement deems notice served. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 12. complaint timely; all s.138 ingredients satisfied. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 13. sentence adequate; revision dismissed. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
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 o
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 signature raises presumption of debt under NI Act ss118(a),139; accused's lost cheque plea fails without bank report; revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, upholding conc....
Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interfer....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, not reappreciating evidence. Section 139 NI Act presumption of debt from admitted cheque issuance rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance o....
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 ....
Admission of cheque execution raises presumptions under NI Act Sections 118(a) & 139 of consideration and liability discharge; accused must rebut with evidence. Revisional court under CrPC Section 39....
Revisional court upheld s138 NI Act conviction where accused admitted cheque but failed to rebut ss118/139 presumptions via evidence; limited interference absent perversity in concurrent findings; fi....
Admission of cheque signature triggers Section 139 presumption of liability; accused must rebut by preponderance of probabilities with probable defence. Revisional court limited to correcting pervers....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if debt subsists; accused must lead evide....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisi....
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
