Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Ashish Bharatbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Key Points: - The presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defense. (!) - The standard to rebut the Section 139 presumption is preponderance of probabilities, and the accused may rely on evidence or on the complainant's materials to raise a probable defense. (!) (!) (!) - The Trial Court’s acquittal was preserved because the accused successfully raised doubts about the recoverable debt and the prosecution failed to prove a legally enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed under section 138 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of cheque transactions (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments by applicant's advocate (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments by respondent's advocate (Para 6) |
| 5. observations on presumption under section 139 (Para 7) |
| 6. observations on evidence and burden of proof (Para 8) |
| 7. court's conclusion on evidence (Para 9) |
| 8. application seeking leave to appeal dismissed (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
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 28.08.2024 passed by the learned 11th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat in Criminal Case No. 54353 of 2022, 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”).
1.1 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 pr
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 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 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 Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, requiring the applicant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which was not demonstrated in this cas....
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 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 a cheque being for discharge of a debt is rebuttable, and the applicant failed to prove the cheque represented a legally enforceable debt.
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
