HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SVP
S.R.CORPORATION THRO SUNILSING D. RAJPUT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned 13th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2022, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Patel for learned advocate Mr. Suraj A. Shukla, for the applicant, learned advocate Ms. Madhavi Solanki for learned advocate Mr. Zubin F. Bharda for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent No.1 – State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Patel for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat and by order dated 20.09.2022, the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat was pleased to convict the respondent No. 2 and sentence him to simple imprisonment of one year and to pay the amount of cheque with 9% interest to the applicant and in default simple imprisonment of six months.
4. Being aggrieved by
Differing evaluations of evidence by trial and appellate courts necessitate a review, justifying the granting of leave to appeal.
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 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 presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant, and the accused must rebut this presumption with credible evidence.
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 interpretation of Section 56 of the Negotiable Instrument Act must be correctly applied to determine the enforceability of a cheque, especially in light of prior payments.
The trial court's failure to properly appreciate evidence warrants reconsideration of the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The court emphasized the necessity for proper appreciation of evidence and documents in cases involving cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The court found that the Trial Court misapprehended the limitation issue regarding the debt, which was within the legally enforceable period, warranting the granting of leave to appeal.
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.
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.