Back
M. K. THAKKER
Patel Bharatbhai Manibhai – Appellant
Versus
Patel Maheshbhai Kodarbhai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Himmatnagar dated 29.08.2023 in Criminal Case No.2149 of 2020.
2. The appellant is the original complainant, who filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar alleging that the complainant is doing the agriculture work and private business and knowing the accused through one Rajubhai Amichandbhai Patel, who was the resident of Mahavinagar, Himmatnagar, District: Sabarkantha. On 11.10.2019, the respondent – accused came along with Rajubhai Patel and demanded the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and the complainant, after arranging the same, lent the said amount to the respondent – accused in cash. At the time of lending the amount, assurance was given that it would be repaid within a period of three months however, on completion of three months, when the demand was raised, the cheque bearing no.082762 of Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank was issued in favour of the complainant. On depositing the same, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement of “insufficient f
The legal principle established is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defense.
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the initial burden on the complainant to prove the circumstances under which the cheque was issued and that it was....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable nature of statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly in cases of dishonoured cheques, and the burden ....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption that a cheque is issued for the discharge of a debt or liability.....
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.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
