Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Prem Lata Busheri – Appellant
Versus
Usha Goel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonour for jewellery purchase alleged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. lower courts upheld conviction under section 138. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. security cheque defence probable; sale unproved. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. revisional jurisdiction limited; no re-appreciation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. presumption of debt on admitted cheque issuance. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. proprietor files complaint validly for firm. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. poa holder testifies with personal knowledge. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 8. contradictory defence fails; evidence required. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. dishonour and notice validly proved. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. ingredients satisfied; sentence and compensation adequate. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 25.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) we
In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut presumption of debt with evidence, rejecting unsupported secu....
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 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....
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....
NI Act s.139 presumption rebutted by evidence of prior unpaid loans, pending litigations, and improbability of further advance; revisional jurisdiction under CrPC s.397 limited to perversity or ignor....
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....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
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 ....
Revisional court upheld s138 NI Act conviction where accused admitted cheque but failed to rebut ss118/139 presumptions via evidence; limited interference absent perversity in concurrent findings; fi....
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
