Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Santokh Singh – Appellant
Versus
Baldeep Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of cheque issuance and dishonour (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial proceedings and lower courts' convictions upheld (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. accused challenges proof of legally enforceable debt (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. presumptions under sections 118 and 139 ni act (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. no need for specific liability details in complaint (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. presumption obviates corroboration; accused must rebut (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. itr non-production does not rebut presumption (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. dishonour and notice proved; s138 ingredients satisfied (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 10. deterrent sentence and compensation upheld appropriate (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45) |
| 11. revision petition dismissed confirming conviction (Para 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned Addition
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 ....
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....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption under NI Act ss.118(a),139 of debt discharge; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Revisional jurisdiction bars reappreciation absent pe....
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....
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....
Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings ....
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 triggers presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of debt discharge; security cheques attract Section 138 liability on dishonour; accused must rebut with evidenc....
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....
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....
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
