Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ashwani Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sapna Devi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque issued discharging land purchase liability. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. lower courts convicted for s.138 ni act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. defence of brother agreement, capacity, limitation raised. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. revisional jurisdiction limited absent perversity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. five ingredients constitute s.138 offence. (Para 17) |
| 6. presumptions under ss.118(a),139 upon execution. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. s.313 statement insufficient to rebut presumption. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. presumption obviates proving consideration initially. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. financial capacity unchallenged; presumption unrebutted. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. bank memo presumes insufficient funds dishonour. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 11. notice deemed served; no repayment made. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. covid orders extend s.138 limitation period. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 13. all s.138 ingredients satisfied; conviction proper. (Para 39) |
| 14. deterrent sentence, compensation twice amount justified. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 15. revision dismissed; conviction upheld. (Para 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned
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....
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 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....
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity. NI Act presumptions u/ss 118,139 arise on cheque admission; accused must rebut with evidence. No initial complainant ....
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....
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 ....
Admission of cheque issuance raises presumption of liability under NI Act Ss.118/139; rebuttal requires evidence beyond CrPC 313 denial. Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence....
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
