Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
PATEL SUNILBHAI RAMABHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.
2. By way of this application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dakor, in Criminal Case No. 512/2000, whereby the Trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo SI of one year and also directed to pay double of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the original complainant, as well as order dated 18.02.2025 by which learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad, dismissed Criminal Appeal No.111/2023 and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction of learned JMFC. Hence, this Revision Application is filed.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application and submitted that, the both the courts below have erred in recording conviction though
The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt for conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the applicants successfully rebutted the presumption of guilt.
The court emphasized the necessity for the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt under the N.I. Act, allowing interim relief and bail pending revision.
The court emphasized the necessity for the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt in dishonor of cheque cases, granting interim relief due to insufficient evidence.
The conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was erroneous as the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt, warranting interim relief for the applicants.
The court held that the failure of the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence pending revision.
The court emphasized the necessity for the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt in dishonor of cheque cases, allowing bail pending revision due to insufficient evidence.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence is insufficient, the benefit of doubt favors the accused.
The conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was overturned due to the complainant's failure to prove a legally enforceable debt.
The court quashed the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act due to the amicable resolution of the dispute, emphasizing the compoundable nature of the offence.
The court ruled that the complainant must prove a legally enforceable debt for a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and granted interim relief by suspending the sentence pending revision.
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
