2013 (7) TMI 1187 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to file the complaint.
2. Proof of documents and evidence.
3. Legally enforceable debt or liability.
4. Parameters for interference in an acquittal judgment.

Summary:

1. Authority to file the complaint:
The complaint was initially filed by Lakhwinder Singh as a partner of M/s. Guru Nanak Tractors. However, during the trial, Jasmer Singh appeared as a witness and claimed to be a partner without providing an authority letter. The court noted, "the complaint has not been pursued by a legally authorized person," and thus, the evidence of CW-2 Jasmer Singh could not be considered valid.

2. Proof of documents and evidence:
The court observed that the complainant failed to prove the documents in the presence of the accused. It was stated, "It was duty of the complainant to prove and to put all these documents in the presence of the accused," which was not done. Additionally, no account statement was produced to show any outstanding amount against the accused, weakening the complainant's case.

3. Legally enforceable debt or liability:
The court referenced the Kerala High Court's principles, stating, "If the negotiable instrument is not supported by consideration, there is no question of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act being attracted." The court found that the complainant could not establish that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, especially considering the accused's defense that the tractor was repossessed and a no-due certificate was issued by Mahindra and Mahindra.

4. Parameters for interference in an acquittal judgment:
The court cited several precedents, including 'Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat' and 'State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta,' emphasizing that interference in an acquittal is warranted only for "compelling and substantial reasons." The court concluded that the complainant failed to show any error of law or fact that would justify overturning the acquittal, stating, "Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge."

Conclusion:
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal due to the complainant's failure to prove the authority to file the complaint, lack of evidence, and absence of a legally enforceable debt.