2017 (5) TMI 1430 - HC - Indian Laws

Offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - Held that - The trial court has erred in convicting the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as the appellant has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence in support of his claim made in the complaint. The appellate court has rightly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties and has not committed any illegality in setting aside the judgment passed by the trial court and in acquitting the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment dated 6.8.2014 passed by the Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer
- Conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the trial court
- Appeal filed by respondent No.2 and acquittal by the appellate court
- Evidence presented by both parties during the trial
- Discrepancies in the appellant's claim regarding the loan amount and cheque details
- Defense presented by respondent No.2 regarding the purchase of a car and payment of dues
- Evaluation of evidence by the trial court and appellate court

Analysis:
- The trial court convicted respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act based on the appellant's complaint about a loan of ?40,000 and a dishonored cheque. The trial court found the respondent guilty, leading to a one-year imprisonment and a compensation order.
- The appellant's evidence included his statement, affidavit, and documents, while respondent No.2 presented a defense involving a car purchase agreement and payment details. Witnesses and documents were examined during the trial.
- The appellate court overturned the trial court's decision, acquitting respondent No.2. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the evidence proved the loan and cheque details, contrary to the appellate court's findings.
- Discrepancies in the appellant's claim, including contradictory statements about the loan amount and cheque purpose, raised doubts about the case's validity. The appellate court considered these inconsistencies in its decision.
- Respondent No.2's defense highlighted a car purchase agreement and payment of dues, supported by witnesses. The appellate court found this defense more reliable based on the evidence presented.
- The evaluation of evidence by both courts differed, with the trial court convicting based on the appellant's evidence and the appellate court acquitting due to lack of substantial proof.
- The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, noting the lack of strong evidence supporting the appellant's claims and the credibility of the respondent's defense. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.