2017 (1) TMI 1112 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of acquittal - cheque returned with an endorsement of account closed - Held that - From the document at Exh.39 to 51, it is not crystal clear that respondent-accused has taken amount on credit and therefore, on perusal of the documentary evidence, it appears that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the present respondent No.1-accused from the charges levelled against him. As minutely perused the oral and documentary evidence produced on record and also gone through the observations made by the learned trial Court in paras-17 to 19. The learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused from the alleged offence. As in full agreement with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned District and Sessions Court, Vadodara. In result, present Criminal Revision fails both on law and facts and the same deserves fate of rejection only. Hence, present application is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order of acquittal and confirmation of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
2. Evaluation of evidence regarding the repayment of loan through cheques and subsequent legal proceedings.
3. Arguments presented by both parties regarding the legality of the judgment and order of acquittal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the applicant sought to quash the order of acquittal passed by the District Judge and confirm the conviction of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The respondent had repaid a loan through four cheques, one of which was returned due to insufficient funds. The applicant then filed a criminal complaint under Section 138, leading to the initial conviction of the respondent, which was later overturned by the District and Sessions Court, prompting the current revision application.

2. The applicant argued that the trial court's acquittal was illegal and against the evidence on record, emphasizing the validity of the cheques and the repayment of the loan. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the trial judge correctly evaluated the evidence, highlighting discrepancies in the complainant's version and the documentary evidence. The Additional Prosecutor for the respondent-State supported the acquittal, stating that the respondent had rebutted the legal presumption under the law.

3. Upon hearing the arguments, the Court examined the trial judge's observations regarding the evidence presented. The judge found that the complainant failed to prove the lending of a specific amount and that the vouchers provided were questionable, leading to doubts about the transaction details. The Court agreed with the trial judge's assessment, concluding that the respondent had successfully rebutted the legal presumption and that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court upheld the order of acquittal, dismissing the revision application.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the revision application.