Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Gian Chand Singal – Appellant
Versus
Puneet Gautam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonour case; trial acquitted unproven debt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on s139 presumption and proof burden. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. interfere perverse acquittal; ni act presumption applies. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. s138 requires drawing, bounce, notice, non-payment. (Para 16) |
| 5. execution admission raises ss118/139 debt presumption. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. accused admits loan, fails repayment proof. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. security cheques attract s138 liability. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. payee-filled signed cheque enforceable. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. admissions overcome proof inconsistencies. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. dishonour, notice, non-payment proved. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. acquittal set aside; s138 conviction. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan, District Solan, 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 (NI Act). (Parties shall hereinafter
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
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.
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 under Section 139 of the NI Act obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings ....
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisi....
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
