Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
Regent Granito (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 3629 of 2006, 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 NI Act”).
1.1 The parties are hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” and “the accused” as they 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 appeal as well as the impugned judgment and order and paper book filed by the complainant are as under:
2.1. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, as the accused had purchased goods of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant and the accused issued cheque No.199835 for the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- dated 15.06.2006 from his account with Al
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....
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court respects the presumption of innocence and can only overturn a trial court's acquittal if it is perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
The appellate court has the authority to review evidence in acquittal appeals, but must respect the presumption of innocence and ensure that any findings against the accused are based on substantial ....
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.
In an appeal against acquittal, the prosecution must demonstrate a legally enforceable debt; an accused's acquittal will not be disturbed unless clear illegality or absurdity is shown.
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.
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
