Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat

18 SCC 106Reported decision2019#9479 most cited

What is Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat authority for?

The restriction on an appellate court's power regarding other offenses does not apply with the same rigor to offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) which involve presumptions against the accused. An accused cannot deny signatures on cheques drawn from their bank account for a specific sum, which attracts presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat · Section 139 NI Act · Section 118 NI Act · presumption against accused · negotiable instruments · cheque bounce · appellate court powers · onus on accused

Judgments citing Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Religare Enterprises Ltd

ITA/598/2019HC Delhi08 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

For Appellant: Mr. C.M. Grover & Ms. PayalFor Respondent: Mr. R.K. Burman, Adv. (through VC)
Section 138Section 313

…n the power of Appellate Court in regard to other offence does not apply with same vigor in the offence under NI Act which entails presumption against the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat : (2019) 18 SCC 106 had observed as under: “12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-accused, the impugned judgment is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Arulvelu [Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 288] because the High Court has set aside the judgment of the trial court without pointing out any perversity…

Jinesh (HUF) vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed

ITA/169/2012HC Karnataka22 Jan 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice P.N.Desai Criminal Appeal No. 169 Of 2012 Between: Sri. Prasad S. Rajanalli S/O. Sri. R.L.S. Setty, Aged About 48 Years R/At No.175, 2Nd Cross Aecs Layout, Rmv Ii Stage Sanjaya Nagara Bangalore-560094 …Appellant (By Sri. G.S.Venkat Subbarao.,Advocate) And: Sri. B. Shiva Kumar S/O. Sri. Basappa Aged About 43 Years R/O.Nagarakatte Grama Kadajji Post Davanagere Tq & Dist …Respondent (By Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T.,Advocate)

Section 138Section 378(4)

…hese main arguments, learned counsel prayed to convict the accused and to allow the petition. In support of his arguments the learned counsel relied on the following decisions: 1) Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another - (2019) 18 SCC 106 2) Shree Daneshwari Traders Vs. Sanjay Jain and another – (2019) 16 SCC 83 3) Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar – (2019) 4 SCC 197 4) Sumeti Vij Vs. Paramount Tech Fab Industries - 2021 SCC Online SC 201 5) M/s. Kalamani Tex & Anr. Vs. P.Balasubramanian – Crl.A.No.123/2021 dated 10.02.2021 6) P. Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazer and another – (2022)…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemptions) vs. Aparna Ashram

Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed along with the pending

ITA/398/2018HC Delhi17 Dec 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 138Section 251Section 313

…tion 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, has observed as under: “15. So far the question of existence of basic ingredients for drawing of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act is concerned, apparent it is that the appellant-accused could not deny his signatures on the cheques in question that had been drawn in favour CRL.REV.P. 398/2018…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 2 vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra

ITA/637/2019HC Delhi21 Oct 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

For Respondent: Mr.Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the
Section 114Section 139Section 269

…e Court in regard to other offence does not apply with the same vigour in the offence under provisions of the NI Act which entails presumption against the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat : (2019) 18 SCC 106 had observed as under: “12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-accused, the impugned judgment is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Arulvelu [Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 288] because the High Court has set aside the judgment of the trial court without pointing out any perversit…

State of Karnataka by Its vs. Hemalata G Joshi

Appeal is allowed

WA/100118/2016HC Karnataka28 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S.Rachaiah Criminal Appeal No. 100118 Of 2016 (A) Between:

Section 138Section 139Section 378(4)

…the ground that such an amount does not reflect in the Income Tax Returns. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr (2019) 18 SCC 106, Kalamani Tex and Anr v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283 to buttress his submissions. 1 2023 LIVELAW (SC) 46 - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12465 CRL.A No. 100118 of 2016 11. We shall first consider the Criminal Appeals. 12. This Court in the case of Baslingappa v. Mudibasapp…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A) vs. M/S Danish Steel Cluster Pvt Ltd

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA/18/2017HC Karnataka03 Aug 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice P.N.Desai Criminal Appeal No. 18 Of 2017 Between: B Nagalakshmamma Aged About 32 Years, W/O Nataraju M.C., R/O Opp. To Ex-Counsellor, Channapatna, 12Th Main, 1St Cross, Ramanagara District, Channapatna, Also At: No.39/40, Hp Company, Hamlet Packard Global, Software Ltd., Electronic City, Bangalore 100.

Section 138Section 313Section 378(4)

…held that the complainant has not proved her financial capacity. The learned counsel in support of his arguments, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlall Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 18 SCC 106 wherein at paragraph No.18, the Apex Court stated principles regarding the presumption arising under Section 139 of the Act. Learned counsel argued that in view of the above decision, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is illegal and needs to be set aside. With these main arguments, learned counsel prayed to set aside the im…

The Commisisoner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/S Lokesh Machines Limited

ITTA/172/2012HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commisioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S.Clear Water Technologies

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/391/2014HC Karnataka17 Dec 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs Justice K.S.Mudagal

Section 138Section 313Section 378(4)

…5 2021 SCC Online SC 201 6 2021 SCC Online SC 788 7 2021 SCC Online Bom. 5162 8 2021 SCC Online SC 325 9 (2018) 1 SCC 560 10 (2015) 9 SCC 622 11 2017 SCC Online Ker 23924 12 (2009) 2 SCC 513 13 (2020) 4 SCC 695 14 (2019) 4 SCC 197 15 (2019) 18 SCC 106 16 (2020) 2 SCC 514 17 (2021) 5 SCC 283 18 (2015) 17 SCC 368 19 (2015) 8 SCC 378 20 (2012) 1 SCC 260 Crl.A.No.391/2014 8 M Submissions of Sri Chandrashekaran, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused in support of the impugned order: 14. No doubt there was presumption under Sections 118 and 1…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Bilagi Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamith

ITA/100007/2015HC Karnataka16 Dec 2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice S.Rachaiah Criminal Appeal No. 100007 Of 2015 (A)

Section 138Section 139Section 378

…I Act and rebuttal thereof in the following:- "26. In the light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act 2 (2019) 18 SCC 106 - 9 - CRL.A No. 100007 of 2015 does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54, may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in tha…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s. Kanyakaparameswari Engineering Ltd

ITTA/605/2013HC Telangana19 Dec 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Appeal is allowed, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is set

ITTA/130/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Acquitted Of The Commission Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Ni Act). (The Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In The Same Manner As They Were Arrayed Before The Learned Trial Court For Convenience) 1 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment? Yes.

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocate
Section 138Section 139Section 313

…e trial court.” 10 15. While dealing with the appeal against the acquittal in a complaint filed for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC 106 that the normal rules with same rigour cannot be applied to the cases under Negotiable Instruments Act because there is a presumption that the holder had received the cheque for discharge of legal liability. The Appellate Court is entitled to look into the evidence to determine whether the accused has discharged the burden o…

Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (18 SCC 106) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax