HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO
Bakulaben Harshadbhai Raval – 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 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 4028 of 2018, 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 N I Act”).
1.1 The respondent No. 2 is 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 complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, mainly contending that the accused had taken a loan of amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash and the accused had issued twenty cheques for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each including one cheque No.561096 dated 14.07.2018 from the acco
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 appellate court has the authority to review evidence in acquittal cases but must uphold the presumption of innocence and respect the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist.
The trial court's failure to properly appreciate evidence led to the granting of leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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 is rebuttable, and the accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
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.