Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Surekha Devi – Appellant
Versus
Shakti – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision against conviction under section 138 ni act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. lower courts upheld presumption from admitted cheque. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner argues contradictory evidence rebuts presumption. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. respondent defends concurrent findings and unrebutted presumption. (Para 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors or perversity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. presumption rebutted by prior defaults and inconsistencies. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. conviction set aside; accused acquitted. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.01.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 28.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, HP. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (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 petition ar
NI Act s.139 presumption rebutted by evidence of prior unpaid loans, pending litigations, and improbability of further advance; revisional jurisdiction under CrPC s.397 limited to perversity or ignor....
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....
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....
The presumption of dishonor under Section 138 can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the existence of enforceable debt.
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....
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....
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act rebutted by account statement and cross-examination showing no legally enforceable debt due to unproven excessive interest; revisional court set aside perverse co....
In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut presumption of debt with evidence, rejecting unsupported secu....
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.
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
