Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sandeep Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
PNB – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 5.1.20022 and order of sentence dated 7.5.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, HP (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 (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act. It is engaged in banking activities through various branches, and one such branch is located at Bilaspur. The accused approached the complainant for a term loan of Rs.26,66,000/- for the purchase of a new AMW 2518 Tipper. The complainant sanctioned the loan and advanced a sum of R
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 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; 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 ....
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.
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent conviction under NI Act S.138 absent perversity; presumption of debt under S.139 holds on signature admission unless rebutted by proba....
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
