Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Diwan Chand – Appellant
Versus
Mast Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque issued for excavator rental liability under ni act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court acquitted on forensic signature mismatch evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. forensic opinion insufficient against ni act presumption. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. no appellate interference with reasonable acquittal view. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse; relaxed in ni cases. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. forensic expert credibly disproved accused's cheque signature. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. complainant failed to prove debt or transaction details. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. ni presumption requires proof of accused's signature first. (Para 22) |
| 9. appeal dismissed upholding trial court's reasonable acquittal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2014, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act based on reliable forensic evidence disproving accused's signature on cheque, as presumption under Sections 118 and 139 re....
Presumption under Sections 118(a)/139 NI Act rebutted by probable defence evidence that cheque was security for shop 'Pagri' payable only on possession delivery, which failed; unregistered long-term ....
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused.
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
Admission of cheque execution triggers Sections 118/139 NI Act presumptions of debt; burden on accused to rebut by evidence; trial acquittal ignoring presumption and shifting onus to complainant is p....
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act that cheque is for debt discharge holds unless rebutted by preponderance of probabilities; trial acquittal reversed for perversely ignoring defence witness confir....
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
