Back
M. K. THAKKER
Mehulkumar Vishnuprasad Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C. referred hereinafter) challenging the judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar at Sabarkantha in Criminal Case No.6123 of 2013 below Exhibit 117 dated 24.08.2023, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted from the charges under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
2. Brief facts of the present case in a capsulized form are as follow:
2.1. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant and the accused were belonging from the same village and they were friends and having homely relations with each other. On sudden needs of the money, the respondent-accused came to the house of the complainant on 13.01.2013 and demanded the amount of Rs.3 Lakh. The complainant from his saving as well as after arranging the fund from the family members as well as the friends has lent the amount of Rs.2,49,999/to the respondent-accused.
On being repeated demand, cheque bearing No.228327 of Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank, Raygadh Branch for the amount of Rs.2,49,999/was issued in favour of the complainant dated 01.05
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
In a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the burden of proof shifts to the appellant once the respondent raises a probable defense.
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act rebutted on preponderance of probabilities where cross-examination shows complainant's lack of financial capacity as housewife with unproven remitt....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt, and the burden to rebut t....
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt is rebuttable and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this instance.
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
