Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
Ketan Naranbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for leave to appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. disagreement with trial court's judgment (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. need for proof of debt and rebuttal (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. dismissal of leave to appeal (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
S.V. PINTO, J.
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 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 1251 of 2024, 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 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 agains
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 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....
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 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 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 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 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.
Dishonour of cheque – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
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
