9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Details of the judgment: 1. The petitioner accused respondent No. 1 of issuing a dishonored cheque in discharge of a financial liability. The cheque was returned uncashed with the remark "accounts closed." Despite a legal notice, respondent No. 1 failed to make the payment, leading to the complaint. 2. The trial court convicted respondent No. 1, but the Appellate Court acquitted him due to lack of evidence. The Appellate Court noted the absence of proof regarding the advancement of the loan, return of the loan, and issuance of the cheque, emphasizing the insufficiency of the testimony of the special power of attorney. 3. The petitioner did not testify in court but appointed a special power of attorney after filing the complaint. The attorney's lack of personal knowledge and the absence of details in the complaint raised doubts about the credibility of the evidence presented. 4. The Appellate Court correctly highlighted the necessity for the complainant to testify and prove the allegations against the accused. The court emphasized that the power of attorney's testimony is limited to facts within their personal knowledge. 5. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support the requirement of the complainant's testimony and the limited admissibility of the power of attorney's evidence. Failure of the complainant to testify may lead to adverse inferences regarding the credibility of the case. 6. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence and the consistency with the legal principles outlined in the judgment. In conclusion, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit based on the insufficiency of evidence and failure to establish the necessary facts u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
|
