9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the acquittal judgment of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Existence of Legal Liability The appellant presented a cheque issued by the respondent, which bounced due to insufficient funds. A demand notice was served, and the respondent denied the liability, claiming a different transaction involving plot purchase. The trial court acquitted the respondent based on the defense's version and tape recording evidence. Issue 2: Burden of Proof and Legal Presumption The appellant testified to lending money to the respondent against the cheque, which the respondent failed to honor. The respondent's defense of a plot purchase agreement lacked documentary evidence. The court emphasized the legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating the accused must prove the absence of debt. The respondent failed to substantiate his defense adequately. Issue 3: Evidence and Rebuttal The respondent's defense relied on a tape-recorded conversation, which lacked proper handling and authentication. The court highlighted the necessity of sealing and presenting such evidence correctly. The respondent's failure to provide substantial evidence led to the court overturning the acquittal and finding the respondent guilty under Section 138 of the Act. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the acquittal judgment. The respondent was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. Compensation was ordered to be paid to the appellant. The Trial Court was directed to execute the sentence promptly.
|
