Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Dharmendra Amarsingh Hanjra – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.3, Surat in Criminal Case No. 18838 of 2020, whereby the original accused – respondent No. 2 herein came to be acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act”). The respondent No 2 is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 is the holder of a Money Lenders License, and the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant and had executed two promissory notes on 18.03.2020 and 11.06.2020 and had given cheque No. 000018 of his account with Bank of India for Rs.15,00,000/-. The cheque was deposited b
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defence.
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.
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.
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, requiring only a probable defense from the accused, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
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 presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, requiring the applicant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which was not demonstrated in this cas....
In cheque dishonor cases, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable; the accused can establish a defense based on preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defence, which was successfully established in this case.
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
