HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SVP
RBL BANK LTD THRO MOHAMMED SAHEJAD QURESHI – Appellant
Versus
ARMAN ASSOCIATES – Respondent
ORDER :
(S.V. PINTO, J.)
1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instrument Court No.35, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 125318 of 2021, whereby the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N I Act”).
1.1 The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present application as well as the impugned judgment and order and paper book filed by the applicant are as under:
2.1. The applicant bank filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, mainly contending that the accused as partnership firm had taken a loan and a loan agreement was executed and the accused had
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be applied in favor of the holder in due course unless effectively rebutted by the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be drawn in favor of the holder unless rebutted, and misinterpretation of evidence by the Trial Court can lead to a successful....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be drawn in favor of the holder of the cheque, and misinterpretation of evidence by the Trial Court warrants leave to appeal.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act establishes that a cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption with a probable defense....
The appellate court has the authority to review evidence in acquittal cases but must uphold the presumption of innocence and respect the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist.
The presumption of a cheque being for discharge of a debt is rebuttable, and the applicant failed to prove the cheque represented a legally enforceable debt.
The court affirmed that the applicant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the NI Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for leave.
The appellate court has the authority to review evidence in acquittal appeals, but must respect the presumption of innocence and ensure that any findings against the accused are based on substantial ....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; the complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to succeed in a claim under Section 138.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish a probable defense against the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.