Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kiran Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Naresh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 30.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 02.03.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (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 petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant purchased a Mahindra Earth Mover on 12.03.2012 from the accused by depositing Rs.3,60,000/- as margin money after taking a loan of Rs. 20 lakh from Himachal Gramin Bank. The accused handed over an old/already used earth mover to the complainant and assured to replace it with a new machine within one month of the purchase. The complainant requested the accused to provide a new earth mover after one month, as promi
The presumption of dishonor under Section 138 can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the existence of enforceable debt.
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act rebutted by account statement and cross-examination showing no legally enforceable debt due to unproven excessive interest; revisional court set aside perverse co....
NI Act s.139 presumption rebutted by evidence of prior unpaid loans, pending litigations, and improbability of further advance; revisional jurisdiction under CrPC s.397 limited to perversity or ignor....
Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interfer....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent conviction under NI Act S.138 absent perversity; presumption of debt under S.139 holds on signature admission unless rebutted by proba....
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....
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....
Admission of cheque execution raises presumptions under NI Act Sections 118(a) & 139 of consideration and liability discharge; accused must rebut with evidence. Revisional court under CrPC Section 39....
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....
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a dishonoured cheque establishes a presumption of liability that the accused must rebut; mere denial is insufficient in the absence of evidence.
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
