9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 1009 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Acquittal of the accused - rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Whether the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused on coming to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved the case and whether it requires interference by this Court? - HELD THAT - When the accused had rebutted the evidence of the complainant the complainant did not make any efforts to prove the fact that goods were supplied to the accused. The onus is on the complainant first to prima facie place the material before the Court for having supplied the goods and the same has not been proved. No doubt the accused also did not enter the witness box but the fact remains that in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 material answers are elicited regarding non-supply of the goods that there is no material for supply of goods and when such being the case the accused has to make out his case only in preponderance of probabilities and the same has been done by the accused. It is also settled law that while reversing the judgment of acquittal the Appellate Court can reverse the finding of the trial Court if the reasoning given by the trial Court is perverse and if the material on record is not considered by the trial Court which are available and there is some mistake apparent on the record then only the Appellate Court can reverse the finding - there are no error committed by the trial Court or there is any perversity or non-consideration of material available on record. The Appeal is dismissed - Registry is directed to pay an amount of 3, 000/- as honorarium to the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused due to the complainant not proving the case. 2. Determination of the appropriate order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused due to the complainant not proving the case: The complainant, a Private Limited Company, alleged that the accused, a proprietorship concern, issued a cheque for ?2,57,797/- which was dishonored. The complainant claimed the cheque was for PVC wires purchased on credit. Upon dishonor, a legal notice was sent, but the accused did not respond, leading to the filing of the complaint. The complainant presented two witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, and marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-18. The trial Judge, after considering the evidence, acquitted the accused, prompting the complainant to appeal. The appellant contended that the trial Judge failed to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the accused did not respond to the legal notice. The appellant argued that the trial Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence, including the Ledger account (Ex.P-16) showing the accused's running account. In defense, the respondent's Amicus Curiae argued that PW-1 lacked the authority to testify, as no company resolution authorized him. The cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 revealed inconsistencies and a lack of evidence for the delivery of goods mentioned in Ex.P-4. The Court noted that PW-1 admitted to not having personal knowledge of the transactions and that no signatures were obtained from the accused for the delivery of goods. PW-2 admitted that no resolution authorized PW-1 to testify and that no delivery receipts were produced. The Court observed that the complainant failed to prove the delivery of goods, as no material evidence was presented. The accused effectively rebutted the complainant's case through cross-examination, shifting the burden back to the complainant, who did not provide additional proof. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Rangappa vs. Mohan, which allows for the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act if the accused does not dispute the cheque and fails to reply to the notice. However, the complainant's failure to prove the supply of goods negated this presumption. The trial Judge concluded that the complainant did not prove the supply of goods and that the cheque might have been a blank one collected earlier. The Court found no error in this conclusion, as the complainant failed to provide evidence of delivery. 2. Determination of the appropriate order: The Court emphasized that an appellate court can reverse an acquittal only if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or if material evidence was not considered. The Court found no such errors in the trial court's judgment and upheld the acquittal. Order: The appeal was dismissed, and the registry was directed to pay ?3,000/- as honorarium to the Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent.
|
