Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J
Ajaysinh Tejsinh Kupawat – Appellant
Versus
Patel Chintankumar Cheljibhai – Respondent
Key Points: - The presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable and requires a probable defence; the accused can rely on materials submitted by the complainant. (!) (!) - The trial court acquitted because the applicant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt and rebutted the presumption; the appellate court affirmed the acquittal. (!) (!) - Apex Court references (Rangappa, Basalingappa) establish the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption as preponderance of probabilities, and that the burden is on the accused to raise a probable defence. (!) (!) (!) - The application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. (!) - The cheque was dishonored for funds insufficiency; complainant alleged a loan of Rs. 15,00,000; accused denied transaction. (!) (!) - The Court noted issues about financial capacity and source of income of the complainant, essential to prove the debt. (!) - The Trial Court’s findings that the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt and that the presumption was rebutted were upheld. (!) - The evidence showed inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and lack of corroboration regarding the loan. (!) (!) - The case discusses that the offence under Section 138 is a strong criminal remedy, with Section 139 providing an evidentiary presumption. (!) (!) - The appeal is disposed of with no further proceedings; leave to appeal rejected. (!)
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 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 01 of 2021, whereby the respondent No. 1 - 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 No. 1 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 filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, as the accused had taken a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for social reasons from the applicant and the accused had issued cheque No.000008 for the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- dated 05.08.2020 from hi
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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
