9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Prosecution for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Acquittal challenged
In this judgment, the appellant/complainant had initiated prosecution against the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which resulted in acquittal. The complaint alleged that the accused issued a cheque for an amount borrowed from the complainant, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite issuing a notice and the accused accepting it, no repayment was made, leading to the filing of the complaint. The Court below acknowledged the issuance of the cheque but found the necessary ingredients of the offence not proven solely based on the cheque's proof. The counsel for the appellant argued that the finding was unjustified as the cheque's issuance was established, and in the absence of rebuttal of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, the accused should be found guilty. On the other hand, the accused contended that the mere issuance and bouncing of the cheque did not prove the offence, emphasizing the need to establish a legally enforceable debt, which the complainant allegedly failed to do. The Court below determined that the complainant successfully proved the issuance of the cheque for a loan amount, its presentation, and the subsequent demand for payment post dishonor. With no evidence rebutting the presumptions in favor of the complainant, the acquittal was deemed unjustified. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was argued that even if the cheque was issued as a security, it could still constitute a legally enforceable debt, supporting the complainant's case. Consequently, the order of acquittal was reversed, leading to the conviction of the accused. The accused was sentenced to undergo a day's imprisonment and pay compensation within two months, with non-payment resulting in further imprisonment. The compensation, if realized, was to be paid to the complainant, concluding the appeal.
|
