Back
M. K. THAKKER
Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel Thro Poa Mahendrabhai Kantilal Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and facts of the complaint (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding sufficiency of evidence and defense claims. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments of the appellant regarding the acquittal (Para 5) |
| 4. observations on presumptions in negotiable instruments (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. principles related to acquittal appeals (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. final decision on the appeal (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J
JUDGMENT :
1. This matter was considered and disposed of finally at the admission stage.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No.54778 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge, Special Negotiable Instruments Act Court, Surat dated 8.4.2023 whereby respondent-accused was acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. It is the case of the complainant that complainant, who is Power of Attorney holder, is having the knowledge with regard to the disputed transaction of the private complaint which is filed before the Competent Court being Criminal Case No.54778 of 2016. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant and accused were belonging to the same village and are the distant relatives. As
The presumption of consideration in negotiable instruments is rebuttable by the accused, requiring only a probable defense rather than testimony, confirmed by expert handwriting analysis.
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.
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.
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.
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 ....
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 presumptions under sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act favor the holder, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the claims of liability.
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
