Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Mam Raj Ramesh Chand Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque issued, dishonoured; trial proceedings summary (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial convicted; appellate acquitted on liability grounds (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. parties contend on presumption rebuttal and firm liability (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or ignores evidence (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. presumption under sections 118/139 ni act rebuttable by probabilities (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. notice admits cheque consideration and receipt (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. accused defense inconsistent; no repayment proof (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. signatory partner personally liable under section 141 (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. witnesses irrelevant; partnership admitted (Para 28 , 29) |
| 10. cash violation doesn't invalidate debt (Para 30) |
| 11. cited cases inapplicable; presumption not rebutted (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. appeal allowed; trial judgment restored (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.03.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 (accused before learned Trial Court) was
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....
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.
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.
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.
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 that cheque is for debt discharge holds unless rebutted by preponderance of probabilities; trial acquittal reversed for perversely ignoring defence witness confir....
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 in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
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.
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
