Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Rajinder Mishra – Appellant
Versus
J.C.C.Bank Arki – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 24.5.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Arki), in Criminal Appeal No. 16-AK/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.2024, in Criminal Complaint No. 117/3 of 2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner- accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, stating therein that accused had applied for Dudh-Ganga Scheme (Diary Farm) loan to the tune of Rs. 3,15,000/- from the complainant-Bank, which was duly sanctioned by the bank on 31.1.2011. Loan was disbursed t
Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act holds unless rebutted by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; High Court in revision refrains from re-appreciating evidence absent perversity ....
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.
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.....
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....
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....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to demonstrate a valid defense to avoid liability for dishonor of a cheque.
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.
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....
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....
The judgment established the importance of the accused's obligation to bring forth evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and highlighted the ....
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
