Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Dinesh Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
Ganendrapal Singh Parmar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-
(ii) Judgment and order dated 26.11.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018, Dinesh Bhatt v. Ganendrapal Singh Parmar and another, by the court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence as recorded in the case affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case is based on a complaint made under Section 138 of the Act filed by Ganendrapal Singh Parmar (“the respondent”) against the revisionist. The respondent died during pendency of the revision. His son has been arrayed as the respondent no. 1/1. It is the ca
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove a defense by preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains in favor of the holder unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut it.
Upon issuance and signature of a cheque, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the onus to the accused to prove absence of debt; a security cheque is en....
Dishonoured cheque attracts presumption of lawful debt under NI Act unless rebutted by accused on preponderance of probabilities; failure justifies conviction even for security cheque with subsisting....
A cheque issued as security can be subjected to Section 138 liabilities; presumption under Section 139 requires the accused to establish a probable defence for avoidance of conviction.
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
