Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO
Suryadeep Finance Thro Dilipbhai Babbhai Khachar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
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 08.02.2024 passed by the learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case No. 16396 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”). 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 are as under:
2.1. The applicant has the business of finance in the name of Suryadeep Finance in Rajkot and the accused had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.01.2022 and had executed the necessary documents. The accused had issued cheque No. 003512 dated 24.03.2022 for Rs.3,00,000/- from his account with Jeevan Commercial Cooperative Bank Limited, Dheba
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 court affirmed that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted, and the burden remains on the complainant to substantiate the existence of a legally enforceable debt, failing....
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
