TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies special leave to appeal, upholds acquittal judgment. Accused rebuts presumption, evidence inconsistencies noted.</h1> <h3>JAYANTILAL DHARAMSHIBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT</h3> JAYANTILAL DHARAMSHIBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - TMI Issues:Challenge to order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Analysis:The applicant filed an application seeking leave to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The case involved a financial transaction between the complainant and the accused, who were related as father-in-law and son-in-law. The accused had borrowed money from the complainant and issued a cheque which later bounced. The complainant alleged that the accused failed to honor the cheque despite legal notices. Both parties presented evidence and witnesses during the trial. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the current application for special leave to appeal.The applicant argued that the trial court erred in not raising the presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant contended that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of consideration and debt, as required by law. Citing relevant case law, the applicant emphasized that the burden of proof was on the accused to show the non-existence of consideration and debt, which was not adequately demonstrated in this case.Furthermore, the applicant relied on another legal decision to support the argument that the accused's failure to dispute his signature on the cheque should lead to the presumption of consideration and legally enforceable debt. The applicant highlighted that the accused's defense was not credible, especially considering the circumstances surrounding the financial transaction and subsequent legal actions between the parties.After hearing the arguments, the court examined the evidence presented during the trial. The court noted discrepancies in the complainant's statements regarding the date of the financial transaction and the issuance of the cheque. Additionally, the court observed that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of consideration and debt through evidence, including cross-examination of witnesses. The court found that the complainant's explanation for the source of the loan was an afterthought and lacked consistency in the complaint and evidence presented.Ultimately, the court rejected the application for special leave to appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal. The court concluded that the evidence on record did not warrant interference with the trial court's decision. Consequently, the record and proceedings were to be returned to the trial court promptly.
TaxTMI 