2015 (3) TMI 857 - HC - Companies Law

Challenge to the acquittal of the respondent - offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - The complaint was filed in personal capacity by Kuldip Singh Deol and Kewal Kaur and as per complainants, they gave friendly loan to the accused, whereas the cheques were issued in favour of the firm of the complainants as per the complaint. Therefore, there is also contradiction whether the friendly loan was given in personal capacity of the complainants or by the complainants' firm. Even as per income tax provisions, such a huge amount cannot be given in cash. There is also nothing on record to show that this amount has been given on interest or not. No pronote or any document was got executed while giving the loan. If the cheques were given in the name of the firm, then it will be treated as that loan was given by the firm. There must be some account of the firm showing payment of this amount to the accused but no such account of the firm has been shown by the complainants. Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted from the complaint as well as the cross-examination of the complainants. Court after discussing the evidence on record, has correctly held that the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The complainants failed to prove that loan was given to the accused as friendly loan as stated by him. Therefore, the cheques issued in the name of the firm, were not issued in discharge any legal liability. - the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2013 passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court - Decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for special leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal.
2. Consideration of evidence and documents by the trial Court.
3. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Contradictions in the complaint regarding the nature of the loan and issuance of cheques.
5. Dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused by the trial Court.
6. Challenge to the trial Court's judgment and the application for special leave to appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for special leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated 13.11.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted. The applicants contended that the trial Court did not consider vital evidence available on record and gave weightage to improbable and irrelevant documents produced by the accused, leading to the acquittal.

2. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found discrepancies in the complaint regarding the loan amount, its source, and the nature of the transaction. The Court noted the lack of particulars regarding the loan, absence of documentation, and contradictions in the complainants' statements. It was observed that the complainants failed to establish the giving of a friendly loan to the accused, as claimed.

3. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by providing evidence such as a lease deed, agreement to sell, and proof of financial transactions related to land dealings. The Court acknowledged the documents submitted by the accused, which were supported by the admission of facts by the complainants, leading to the conclusion that the cheques were not issued to discharge any legal liability.

4. Various contradictions were highlighted in the complaint, including discrepancies between the nature of the loan given in personal capacity versus the issuance of cheques in favor of the complainants' firm. The Court noted inconsistencies in the complainants' version of events and the lack of supporting documentation or accounts to substantiate the alleged loan transaction.

5. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the trial Court's judgment of acquittal, stating that the decision was correct and in accordance with the law. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower Court's ruling and dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal of the accused.

6. In conclusion, the High Court's detailed analysis of the evidence and legal provisions led to the dismissal of the application for special leave to appeal, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence and maintaining consistency in legal proceedings to establish liability effectively.

← Previous Next →