Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Krishna Devi – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision against s.138 conviction and sentence modification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. accused admitted loan, cheque signatures, claimed security. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts applied ni act presumptions correctly. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. dispute on liability proof versus presumption reliance. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. presumption under s.139 on admitted cheque issuance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. security cheque liable for subsisting debt. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. no evidence rebutted s.139 presumption. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. dishonour notice non-payment proved s.138 ingredients. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. default imprisonment valid for compensation. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. revision dismissed with deposit time extension. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.7.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arises on cheque execution admission; accused must rebut by evidence, not mere Section 313 statement. Security cheque liable if debt exists. Revisiona....
Presumption under NI Act Sections 118/139 arises on cheque issuance admission; security cheque attracts Section 138 liability if debt exists; not rebutted here. Revisional jurisdiction limited to per....
Section 139 NI Act presumption of liability rebuttable by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; contradictory accused pleas and non-examination of witness fail rebuttal; revisional juri....
Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence absent perversity; NI Act presumption u/s 139 rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities, accused's uncorroborated denial insufficient; notice returne....
The presumption of liability under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove 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....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption under NI Act ss.118(a),139 of debt discharge; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Revisional jurisdiction bars reappreciation absent pe....
Admission of cheque signature triggers presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of debt discharge; security cheques attract Section 138 liability on dishonour; accused must rebut with evidenc....
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 triggers Section 139 presumption of liability; accused must rebut by preponderance of probabilities with probable defence. Revisional court limited to correcting pervers....
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
