Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Prakash Pandurang Shinde – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant filed a complaint (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicants argue misreading of evidence (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent argues proper judgment (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evidence not maintained (Para 8) |
| 5. presumption rebutted (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. application dismissed (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. The present application is filed by the applicants – legal heirs of the 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 06.10.2021 passed by the learned 24th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 9016 of 2017, whereby the respondent No. 2 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act”).
1.1 The parties are hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” and “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 f
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 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 mandatory, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
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 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 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 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 of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
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.
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
