Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Nand Lal Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Mukhtyar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal in cheque dishonour case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial proceedings and acquittal reasoning. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellant contends presumption not rebutted. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. respondent defends trial court's reasonable view. (Para 10) |
| 5. limited interference with acquittal judgments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. complainant proved payment via defense witness. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. section 139 presumption rebuttable by preponderance. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. dishonour and notice service proved. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. appeal allowed; accused convicted under section 138. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.2.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (NI Act). (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 appeal are that the complainant
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act that cheque is for debt discharge holds unless rebutted by preponderance of probabilities; trial acquittal reversed for perversely ignoring defence witness confir....
Admission of cheque execution triggers Sections 118/139 NI Act presumptions of debt; burden on accused to rebut by evidence; trial acquittal ignoring presumption and shifting onus to complainant is p....
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
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....
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The main legal point established is that the failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the Act.
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
