2020 (3) TMI 1349 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - failure to rebut the presumption by adducing any cogent evidence - existence of debt or not - HELD THAT - To show that as on the said date the outstanding amount was ₹ 5,25,000/-, complainant has not produced any document. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/-. On the other hand it is his case that over a period of time, the accused borrowed the amount and there was a balance of ₹ 5,25,000/- as on 24.05.2006. When such is the case, it is for the complainant to convincingly establish that the amount due as on 24.05.2006 as per the ledger maintained by him was ₹ 5,25,000/-. Though the complainant has stated that he has maintained the ledger, he has failed to produce the same before the trial Court. The defence taken by the accused that the cheque in question was received by the complainant as a security appears probable. The complainant has failed to prove that the accused was due a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/- as on 24.05.2006. From the evidence on record it cannot be said that Ex. P1-cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally recoverable debt - the complainant has failed to prove the cheque-Ex. P1 was issued by the accused towards discharge of his outstanding dues. The reasons assigned by the trial Court cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of N.I. Act

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Allegations: The complainant, running a dalali mandi business, accused an agriculturist, borrowed money for agricultural purposes leading to a debt of ?5,25,000. The accused issued a cheque which bounced due to insufficient funds, resulting in a legal notice being sent.

2. Evidence and Trial: The complainant presented oral and documentary evidence, while the accused also presented his case. The trial court, after considering the evidence, acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal.

3. Appellant's Contentions: The appellant argued that all elements of Section 138 of N.I. Act were met, emphasizing the undisputed issuance and dishonor of the cheque. The appellant claimed the trial court's reasoning was flawed and sought to overturn the acquittal.

4. Respondent's Defense: The respondent contended that the outstanding debt was only ?24,800, not ?5,25,000 as claimed by the complainant. The respondent argued that the complainant failed to prove the higher amount due, presenting a different narrative of events leading to the issuance of the cheque.

5. Court's Analysis: The complainant maintained the debt was ?5,25,000 without producing conclusive evidence, such as ledger records, to support this claim. The court noted the absence of proof regarding the specific debt amount and supported the trial court's decision to acquit the accused.

6. Judgment: The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the complainant failed to establish the accused's debt of ?5,25,000, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the acquittal under Section 138 of N.I. Act.