Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. Present application is filed by the applicant-original complainant under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Negotiable Instruments Act Court, Vadodara (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 41828 of 2011 whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the applicant is a partnership firm and doing the business of manufacturing battery chargers, static excitation/AVR panels, LT panels and PLC/SCADA panels. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 is a proprietary firm and respondent No. 3 is proprietor of respondent No. 2 and respondent accused had awarded work for renovation and automation for 66 nos. of Koshi Barrage Gates at Patna, Bihar and the said work was sub-contracted by accused to applicant-firm. It is alleged that for the part payment in relation of the work under contract, accused issued a cheque of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the applicant and the said cheque came to be depo
The presumption of cheque issuance for debt under Section 139 can be rebutted, requiring the complainant to prove the existence of a legal enforceable debt for a successful prosecution under Section ....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
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....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding legally enforceable debt is rebuttable; the failure to prove such debt leads to liability under Section 138.
The court determined that under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption that a cheque was issued to discharge a debt is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused t....
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.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
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 presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
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
