Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Jitender Kumar Soni – Appellant
Versus
Tarun Mahajan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges appellate acquittal in ni act case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial conviction; appellate reversal on probable defence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments on defence credibility and contradictions. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. interference with acquittal only if patently perverse. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. cheque admission triggers sections 118/139 presumption. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. unregistered long-term lease inadmissible; monthly tenancy. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. defence witnesses corroborate security for shop possession. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. corroborative evidence supports accused defence version. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. probable defence rebuts presumption; no interference. (Para 30) |
| 10. appeal dismissed; acquittal order upheld. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2012 and order of sentence dated 27.04.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court)
Presumption under Sections 118(a)/139 NI Act rebutted by probable defence evidence that cheque was security for shop 'Pagri' payable only on possession delivery, which failed; unregistered long-term ....
Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act based on reliable forensic evidence disproving accused's signature on cheque, as presumption under Sections 118 and 139 re....
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 execution raises presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of legally enforceable debt; rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities. Firm signatory liable under Section 14....
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....
The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused.
Point of Law : Presumption Under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of p....
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
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
