Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Govind Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of cheque dishonour case and lower court convictions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties' contentions on evidence and limitation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. limited scope of revisional jurisdiction (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. ingredients of section 138 ni act offence (Para 20) |
| 5. premature complaint due to 30-day notice presumption (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. inadmissible unsigned unsealed dishonour memos (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. revision allowed; conviction set aside (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 3.10.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 13.5.2024 and order of sentence dated 15.5.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were as upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
NI Act s.138 complaint premature if filed before 15 days from 30-day deemed service of notice via registered post without proof; computer-generated dishonour memos without seal/signature/65B certific....
Computer-generated cheque return memo without bank seal or signatures fails to attract presumption of dishonour; prosecution must prove insufficient funds via proper evidence from relevant bank.
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....
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 signature raises NI Act presumptions of debt discharge (ss.118(a),139); accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Security/blank signed cheques attract s.138 liability de....
Admission of cheque signatures triggers presumption of debt under NI Act ss.118/139, rebuttable only by accused evidence; security cheques attract s.138 liability if debt subsists; revisional jurisdi....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers Ss.118(a),139 NI Act presumptions of debt; accused must rebut by evidence, not mere 313 CrPC denial. Signature mismatch and security cheques for existing liabili....
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; presumption under NI Act Sections 118,139 not rebutted by mere denial or police report without bank intimation; concurrent findings upheld where defence....
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
