9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against acquittal u/s 378 of CrPC for offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Summary: 1. The appellant filed a complaint u/s 200 of CrPC alleging offence u/s 138 of the Act against the respondent and another partner of a firm, claiming they borrowed money and issued a cheque which bounced. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed the cheque was forged. 2. The complainant presented evidence, including a hand writing expert's report matching the signatures on the cheque. The Magistrate acquitted the accused due to lack of proof of lending the amount. 3. The appellate Court noted that the complainant's case lacked consistency regarding the loan being for the firm. The presumption u/s 139 of the Act requires proof of debt for a cheque issuance. 4. The complaint did not specify the loan date, leading to discrepancies. The cheque date and loan date mismatched, rebutting the presumption of consideration. Lack of documentation and financial capacity raised doubts on the complainant's claim. 5. The accused provided evidence supporting his defense, including a document showing his retirement from the firm. The Court upheld the acquittal, finding no grounds for interference. 6. The Court concluded that the judgment was in accordance with the law, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
