Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Virender Singh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Rishab Singh Thakur – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 88 of 2025
Decided On : 01-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheques dishonoured for stop payment under s138 ni act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial evidence led by both parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts upheld conviction and presumption. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. accused argues presumption rebutted by evidence. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited without perversity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. signature admission raises s118/139 presumption. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. defence evidence corroborates complainant's case. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. presumption obviates proving consideration or witnesses. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. bank memo presumes dishonour reason. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 10. stop payment attracts s138 offence. (Para 34) |
| 11. notice served; s138 ingredients satisfied. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 12. sentence and compensation adequate under ni act. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 13. revision petition dismissed. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 28.12.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests), District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 26.12.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, District Shimla, (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the parties had known each other for the last 12 years. The complainant lent 50,000, 35,000, and 50,000 (total 1,35,000) to the accused on 13.04.2018, 16.04.2018, and 27.04.2018, respectively, in the presence of one Mohit Yadav. The accused issued two cheques of 49,000/- each on 10.09.2019 and 25.09.2019, respectively, to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheques to his bank, but they were dishonoured with the endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused, but the accused failed to repay the money after receipt of the legal notice. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action against the accused as per the law.
3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The complainant examined himself (CW-1) to prove his complaint.
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the case of the complainant in its entirety. He claimed that he had stood guarantor of the complainant for his car loan and had furnished the cheques as security. He examined Narotam Kumar (DW-1), Shakuntla Thakur (DW-2) and himself (DW-3) to prove his defence.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signature on the cheques, and a presumption would arise that the cheques were issued to discharge the liability. The plea taken by the accused that he had furnished the cheques as a guarantor for the car loan of the complainant was not proved. The cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. The notice was served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount despite receipt of the notice. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a compensation of 1,10,000/-.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), District Shimla, H.
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....
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 issuance raises presumption of liability under NI Act Ss.118/139; rebuttal requires evidence beyond CrPC 313 denial. Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence....
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....
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.
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; 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 ....
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....
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....
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....
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
