9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application for leave to appeal against acquittal u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue 1: Lack of evidence for loan payment The complainant alleged issuance of a cheque for a loan amount but failed to provide any evidence of the loan payment to the accused. The promissory note presented did not establish the liability of the accused towards the complainant. The absence of documentation or testimony regarding the loan transaction weakened the complainant's case. Issue 2: Material alteration of the cheque The complainant admitted to altering the payee name on the cheque without the consent of the accused. The alteration was made based on instructions from an unknown individual, T.K. Agarwal, whose relationship with the accused was not established. This unauthorized alteration constituted a material change in the cheque, rendering it void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lack of consent from the accused for the alteration further weakened the case against the accused. Judgment Summary: The High Court of Bombay upheld the Magistrate's decision to acquit the accused of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the lack of evidence regarding the loan payment and the material alteration of the cheque supported the acquittal. The court emphasized that the Magistrate's decision was reasonable and not perverse, citing legal precedents that discourage interference in such cases where a different opinion could be possible. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was rejected based on the soundness of the Magistrate's decision.
|
