9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against order of acquittal under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
In this case, the appellant filed a Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal in a matter related to a cheque issued under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The main contention raised was regarding the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, arguing that the cheque issued was in lieu of a debt owed by the accused to the complainant. The appellant contended that the acquittal by the Magistrate could not be sustained based on this argument. The appellant, in the complaint, alleged that the accused had purchased pesticides on credit and issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000 to discharge the debt. However, during the trial, it was revealed that the accused had given multiple cheques to the complainant as advances for prompt payment of credit purchases. The evidence presented indicated that the cheque in question was not issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt, as there were discrepancies in the amounts mentioned in various documents and the account copies provided. After examining the evidence presented by both parties, the Magistrate concluded that the prosecution had not established the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The Magistrate's findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and were in line with the requirements of Section 138 of the Act, which specifies the necessity of a legally enforceable debt for the offense to be proven. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Magistrate's findings, confirming the acquittal. The judgment emphasized that the acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented and the legal requirements of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was maintained.
|
