Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Mehta Nileshkumar Vishnuprasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's arguments against the acquittal. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidence. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 4. key legal principles from relevant cases. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court confirms the acquittal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court), in Criminal Case No. 3367 of 2005 on 18.10.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent no.2 - accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I.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 relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1 The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act ag
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; the burden shifts to the complainant to prove existence of debt when the accused raises a probable defense challengi....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defe....
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
The presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the complainant to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden shifts to the accused to disprove claims. Insufficie....
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
