Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sanjay Sen – Appellant
Versus
Hira Lal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of cheque dishonour complaint (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. lower courts upheld conviction under s.138 ni act (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner's challenge to conviction and evidence (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. limited scope of revisional jurisdiction (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. presumption under ss.118/139 ni act applies (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. accused failed to rebut presumption (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. legal heir's testimony accepted (Para 24) |
| 8. cheque dishonour presumed correct (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. notice deemed served on refusal/unclaimed (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. all s.138 ingredients satisfied (Para 32) |
| 11. sentence and compensation justified (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. default imprisonment for compensation valid; revision dismissed (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.03.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu (learned Trial Court) were upheld (Parties shall hereinafter be re
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....
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 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....
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....
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.
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 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....
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
