9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 677/92 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment discusses the principles set by the Supreme Court regarding appeals against acquittals, emphasizing the need for strong grounds to overturn an acquittal. The court found the findings in the present case not to be grossly unjust or unsustainable based on the evidence. 2. The undisputed facts include the issuance of a cheque by the accused to the complainant, alteration of the cheque's date, presentation of the cheque by the complainant, and subsequent dishonor due to stop payment directions. The complainant then issued a notice under section 138, leading to the filing of a complaint and the eventual acquittal by the Magistrate. 3. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their case, including the Supreme Court's ruling on the presumption under section 139 in favor of the holder of the cheque. The court also referenced decisions from the Madras and Calcutta High Courts, clarifying the implications of part payments after a statutory notice under section 138. 4. The core issue in the appeal revolves around the interpretation of section 138 of the Act in light of the presumptions created by sections 118 and 139. Both sections establish rebuttable presumptions regarding consideration behind the issuance of the cheque and in favor of the holder of the cheque. 5. The judgment delves into the factual controversy concerning whether the dishonored cheque represented a debt or liability of the drawer towards the drawee. The trial court accepted the defense's argument that circumstances had changed after the cheque issuance, altering the obligations between the parties. 6. The court found the evidence presented by the accused regarding the readjustment of obligations and subsequent payments acceptable, leading to the conclusion that the cheque did not represent the entire debt or part of the debt on the due date. The court emphasized that the legal issue was not the precise extent of the debt but whether section 138 provided a cause of action for criminal prosecution. 7. The judgment highlighted the documentary evidence supporting the readjustments between the parties, including an agreement outlining installment payments in case the expected bank loan was not disbursed. The court noted that subsequent dishonored cheques led to further complaints under section 138 and a civil suit between the parties. 8. Ultimately, the court upheld the judgment and order of acquittal, citing the interpretation of section 138 and finding support in a similar case from the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the sustainability of the acquittal in the present case.
|
