Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Manish Gautam – Appellant
Versus
Yogesh Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. concurrent convictions under section 138 ni act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner's challenges to notice, proof, and sentence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. section 139 presumes debt on signature admission. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. accused failed to rebut presumption probabilistically. (Para 24 , 25 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. bank memo presumes insufficient funds dishonour. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 7. notice service presumed under statutory provisions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. all section 138 ingredients satisfied. (Para 36) |
| 9. deterrent sentence and compensation upheld. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. revision petition dismissed. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.07.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.III, Mandi, Dist
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....
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....
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 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 triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisi....
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....
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharging a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
Admission of cheque issuance triggers Section 139 presumption of debt discharge, rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; uncorroborated security claim fails rebuttal; 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....
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
