Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Pankaj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of s.138 ni act conviction for cheque dishonour (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. s.139 presumption requires probable defence to rebut (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. complainant evidence uncontroverted; accused admits cheque (Para 9) |
| 4. dishonoured security cheque attracts s.138 offence (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. offence ingredients proved; limited revisional jurisdiction (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. revision dismissed; sentence upheld and enforced (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P., alleging therein that pursuant to request made by the accused for grant of education loan, it had sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- on 17.11.2012 in favour of the accused vide account No.641100JB00000334. Though aforesaid amount was to be repaid in installments, but default was made in repaying the loan and as on 30.09.2019, Rs.5,57,000/- was outstanding in the loan account of the accused. With a view
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....
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.
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 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.
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....
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.
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains in favor of the holder unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut it.
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
