Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Durga Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mohar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque for loan repayment dishonoured due to insufficient funds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. presumption under ni act not rebutted; conviction upheld. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments on unsigned memo inadmissibility raised. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. additional evidence rejected lacking due diligence under s391 crpc. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited; no evidence reappreciation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. unsealed memo inadmissible; no s146 ni act presumption. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. dishonour unproven without issuing bank testimony. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. revision allowed; accused acquitted for lack of proof. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.3.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P., (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.9.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ani, District Kullu, HP (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same man
Computer-generated cheque return memo without bank seal or signatures fails to attract presumption of dishonour; prosecution must prove insufficient funds via proper evidence from relevant bank.
NI Act s.138 complaint premature if filed before 15 days from 30-day deemed service of notice via registered post without proof; computer-generated dishonour memos without seal/signature/65B certific....
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 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....
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 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 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....
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 issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118(a), 139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if subsisting debt exists; revisional....
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
