Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Naginder Pal – Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Singh Verma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. steel shuttering sale led to dishonoured cheques. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. accused claims cheques issued as security. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts upheld conviction via presumption. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. petitioner contests notice service, probable defence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. s.139 presumes cheque for debt discharge. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. accused admits liability, fails rebuttal evidence. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. unchallenged cross-exam plea deemed abandoned. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 9. presumption relieves complainant proving consideration. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. bank dishonour memo presumed accurate. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 11. unclaimed notice constitutes deemed service. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. s.138 ni act offence ingredients proved. (Para 34) |
| 13. imprisonment sentence serves as deterrent. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 14. compensation justified for delay and costs. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 15. default imprisonment for compensation valid. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 16. revision dismissed; conviction sentence upheld. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.07.2024, passed by le
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....
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....
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....
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 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....
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....
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 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....
Presumption under NI Act S.139 arises on cheque issuance admission; rebuttable by preponderance via evidence, not S.313 statement. Security cheques liable if debt unpaid; 'account closed' dishonour a....
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....
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
