9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Whether the complainant established that the cheques were issued for consideration and/or in discharge of any debt or liability. 3. Whether the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused was justified. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Rebuttal of Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The primary issue was whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court held that the accused had successfully rebutted the presumption by eliciting valuable admissions during the cross-examination of the complainant. The complainant's credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies, contradictions, and discrepancies in his testimony. The court noted that the accused does not need to conclusively establish the rebuttal but must raise a probable defense that the court finds reasonably probable. The accused relied on the cross-examination of the complainant to establish that the cheques were not issued for consideration. 2. Establishment of Consideration and/or Discharge of Debt or Liability: The complainant claimed that he had given a loan of Rs. 3 Lacs and Rs. 5 Lacs to the accused, for which the accused issued the cheques. However, the complainant's testimony was inconsistent regarding the source and purpose of the funds. At times, he claimed the money was from his aunt Sushila Tendulkar, and at other times, he claimed it was his own money raised through loans and charity. The complainant failed to produce any supporting documents, such as an agreement or power of attorney, which he repeatedly mentioned but did not submit as evidence. The trial court found that the complainant's evidence was unreliable and that he failed to prove that the cheques were issued for consideration or in discharge of any debt or liability. 3. Justification of the Trial Court's Judgment: The trial court's judgment acquitting the accused was based on the conclusion that the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 139 and that the complainant failed to establish the consideration for the cheques. The appellate court agreed with the trial court's assessment, noting that the complainant's own evidence and contradictions supported the accused's defense. The appellate court emphasized that the accused can rebut the presumption by bringing facts on record through cross-examination of the complainant, which was effectively done in this case. The appellate court found no manifest error of law in the trial court's judgment and confirmed the acquittal. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgments and orders of acquittal passed by the trial court were confirmed. The appellate court held that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the complainant failed to prove that the cheques were issued for consideration or in discharge of any debt or liability. The trial court's judgment was found to be justified and free from any manifest error of law.
|
