Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dyal Negi @ Hardyal – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lower courts upheld conviction under section 138 ni act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. premature complaint and financial capacity challenged (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. deemed notice service after 30 days; complaint premature (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. financial capacity unproven; presumption rebutted (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. revision allowed; accused acquitted (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2019 and order of sentence dated 17.4.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (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 revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court a
Premature Section 138 complaint if filed before 15 days from deemed notice service (30 days post-posting sans proof); cross-examination doubting financial capacity rebuts presumption of debt, entitli....
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....
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....
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; 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 ....
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....
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....
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
