Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sohan Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds; lower courts convicted under s.138 ni act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. accused claims lost cheque misused; complainant defends concurrent convictions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation absent perversity or error. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. all section 138 ni act ingredients duly satisfied by evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. presumptions under sections 118(a) and 139 ni act arise. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. lost cheque defence fails without bank notice or evidence. (Para 26 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. cross-examination suggestions falsify accused's defence version. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. signature mismatch triggers section 138 ni act liability. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. six months imprisonment and compensation sentence adequate. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. revision lacks merit and stands dismissed. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.03.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 02.11.2015 and order of sentence da
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; presumption under NI Act Sections 118,139 not rebutted by mere denial or police report without bank intimation; concurrent findings upheld where defence....
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....
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....
Admission of cheque signature raises NI Act presumptions of debt discharge (ss.118(a),139); accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Security/blank signed cheques attract s.138 liability de....
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, not reappreciating evidence. Section 139 NI Act presumption of debt from admitted cheque issuance rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance o....
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.
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....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers Ss.118(a),139 NI Act presumptions of debt; accused must rebut by evidence, not mere 313 CrPC denial. Signature mismatch and security cheques for existing liabili....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if debt subsists; accused must lead evide....
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
