Back
M. K. THAKKER
Dhanjibhai Nathaji Makwana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This is an application filed by the appellant-original complainant praying to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned 5th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No. 5992 of 2019 dated 09.06.2023 whereby, the respondent-accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “N.I.Act”).
2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant and the accused are residents of adjoining villages and accused was running a hospital at Rajasthan and on demand being raised, amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was lent to the respondent-accused and for the payment of the aforesaid amount cheque bearing no. 000019 was given, which was dishonoured and thereafter, on following the due procedure, a private complaint came to be filed under the N.I. Act.
2.1. On being summoned, respondent-accused appeared before the learned trial court and his plea came to be recorded below Exh.6 wherein, he pleaded that amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was borrowed from the complainant and thereafter, settlement was arrived between the parties which was executed b
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, a....
The rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to present a probable defense, affirming the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act establishes that a cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption with a probable defense....
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish a probable defense against the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to provide evidence against the claim of debt.
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, and the accused can rebut the presumption by adducing evidence showing the reasonable ....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defence.
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
