2015 (8) TMI 1522 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - repayment of friendly loan advanced by the complainant - loan in contravention of the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act - legally enforceable debt or not - section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - The view taken by the Magistrate was a reasonable one and based on the evidence adduced before him. There were a number of suspicious features about the case of the complainant which have been reflected in the judgments delivered by the learned Magistrate. On considering the facts of the case, even this Court feels that the possibility of the complainant having taken blank signed cheques from the accused, is apparent, and in any case, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, since the complainant has advanced a similar loan to a number of persons, the transactions in the present two cases are quite likely to be of the type which the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act prohibit. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate that the cheques in question could not be said to have been issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability, does not appear to be suffering from any infirmity or illegality. On a careful consideration on the facts of the case, it appears that in reality, there was no genuine transaction on the basis of any bill of exchange. The complainant simply had advanced some amounts to the accused No. 1 on interest, and had in all probability, taken the blank hundies and blank signed cheques at that time itself. There is a reason to believe that the complainant was advancing money as and by way of a business of money lending without having a valid licence. This conclusion that was arrived at by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity or illegality. It is well settled that while dealing with Appeal from the order of acquittal, this Court would not interfere with the view taken by the trial Court, if the same would be a possible view. It is well settled that when two views of the matter are possible on the basis of the evidence adduced before the trial court, and the trial court has taken one of them leading to acquittal, then the appellate Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's appeal against the orders of acquittal in two cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Accused No. 2's acquittal based on lack of involvement in cheque signing.
3. Complainant's representation issue due to changing legal representation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, who is the complainant in this case, filed two complaints against the respondents under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonored cheques. The Magistrate acquitted the accused, leading to the appellant's appeal, arguing that the acquittal orders were not in accordance with the law and sought conviction of the respondents.

2. The court noted that Accused No. 2 did not sign the cheques in question and had no involvement in the transactions, leading to a proper acquittal. The focus was on Accused No. 1, who signed the cheques and was the main party involved in the alleged offense.

3. The complainant faced representation issues, initially engaging advocates who later sought discharge. The complainant then requested the court to appoint an advocate under the Free Legal Aid Scheme. Despite changing legal representation, the complainant ultimately decided to argue the appeals in person due to dissatisfaction with appointed advocates.

4. The court examined the loan transactions, dates of cheques, and the defense presented by Accused No. 1. The defense claimed the complainant engaged in illegal money lending practices, misusing blank cheques and bills of exchange. However, the court found discrepancies and suspicions in the complainant's version, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the transactions.

5. The Magistrate doubted the complainant's version based on evidence inconsistencies, including the timing of dishonored cheques and the complainant's actions post-dishonor. The court highlighted the lack of definitive expert opinion on handwriting analysis and the possibility of blank cheques being misused, casting doubt on the complainant's claims.

6. Ultimately, the court upheld the Magistrate's decision, emphasizing that the acquittal orders were a possible view based on the evidence presented. The court dismissed the appeals, citing the principle of not interfering with acquittal orders unless there is a clear error in law or evidence.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including legal interpretations, evidentiary considerations, and the court's rationale for dismissing the appeals against the acquittal orders.