Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
O.C. Doegar – Appellant
Versus
Ganesh Dutt Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of s.138 ni act acquittal appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties contend on evidence and prematurity. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. complainant testimony unreliable, unsupported by witnesses. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. lost cheque before issuance bars s.138 offence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. premature complaint if before 15 days from deemed service. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. appeal dismissed; acquittal reasonable and upheld. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.11.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). (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 appeal ar
Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act not interferable unless perverse; prior cheque loss notification rebuts presumption; complaint premature before 15 days from 30-day deemed notice ser....
Admission of cheque execution triggers Sections 118/139 NI Act presumptions of debt; burden on accused to rebut by evidence; trial acquittal ignoring presumption and shifting onus to complainant is p....
The presumption of service of legal notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is premature if filed before the st....
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot arise before expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the accused.
Dishonour of cheque – Complainant is not required to prove service of notice on accused before institution of case—Requirement of giving notice is a clear departure from rule of criminal law, where t....
Negotiable instrument - Notice - Cause of action for filing a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act could not arise prior to expiry of 15 days from the date of service of legal notice on t....
The failure to provide evidence of sending a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act invalidates the complaint, leading to acquittal.
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
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
