Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Kumar Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of s.138 ni act case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on premature complaint and cheque misuse. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited; no evidence re-appreciation. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. presumptions under ss.118(a),139 on cheque admission. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. accused failed to rebut presumption; no loss proof. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. dishonour and notice service duly proved. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. notice valid; complaint timely; ingredients satisfied. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. sentence and compensation upheld; revision dismissed. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 17.04.2023 and order of sentence dated 19.04.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learn
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....
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....
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 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 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....
Admission of cheque signature triggers Section 139 presumption of liability; accused must rebut by preponderance of probabilities with probable defence. Revisional court limited to correcting pervers....
Admission of cheque signatures triggers presumption of debt under NI Act ss.118/139, rebuttable only by accused evidence; security cheques attract s.138 liability if debt subsists; revisional jurisdi....
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 patent errors, no reappreciation absent perversity; presumption of debt under NI Act holds post cheque admission unless robustly rebutted; security cheques attract ....
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....
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
