Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Nikka Ram – Appellant
Versus
Padam Nath (since deceased) through his Lrs. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lower courts upheld conviction for section 138 ni act offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner contends no liability or proper notice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, no reappreciation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. five ingredients required for section 138 ni act offence. (Para 19) |
| 5. cheque signature admission raises sections 118/139 presumption. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. section 313 statement admissions corroborate prosecution case. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. defence evidence confirms liability; presumption unrebutted. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. dishonour, notice, non-payment prove section 138 ingredients. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. compensation up to twice cheque amount with interest appropriate. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. revision dismissed upholding concurrent findings. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi (learned Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 111/2023/20-22 on 15.12.2023 vide which the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2022 and the order
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....
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.
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 patent errors, no reappreciation absent perversity; presumption of debt under NI Act holds post cheque admission unless robustly rebutted; security cheques attract ....
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....
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 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....
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; presumption under NI Act Sections 118,139 not rebutted by mere denial or police report without bank intimation; concurrent findings upheld where defence....
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 ....
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
