Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Satya Devi – Appellant
Versus
Jarman Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonour triggers section 138 ni act proceedings and presumption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties dispute appellate court's rebuttal of ni act presumption. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. prior default renders subsequent loan improbable, rebutting presumption. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. unproven complainant financial capacity rebuts consideration presumption. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. cross-examination evidence displaces rebuttable sections 118/139 presumption. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. acquittal upheld; no leave to appeal granted. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present application has been filed for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.12.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), 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 (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 applic
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act rebutted on preponderance of probabilities where cross-examination shows complainant's lack of financial capacity as housewife with unproven remitt....
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
Presumption under NI Act ss.118/139 rebuttable by evidence of complainant's lack of financial capacity via cross-examination; no appellate interference with reasonable acquittal; IT Act s.269SS viola....
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The accused can raise a probable defense challenging the complainant's financial capacity, shifting the burden to the complainant to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption of consideration for a cheque does not negate the complainant's burden to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt, which can be rebutted by the accused.
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
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
