Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Virender Singh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Rishab Singh Thakur – Respondent
| 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 passe
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
