9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 137 - HC - Indian LawsJudgment of acquittal - offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - It is significant to note that the complainant alleged that the respondent agreed to repay 5, 00, 000/- with 24% interest. However she has not produced any acceptable material to show that the respondent agreed to pay interest. Except the disputed document namely the cheques Ex.P.1 there is no reliable evidence to show that the complainant has lent 10, 00, 000/- to the respondent. The mere oral evidence of D.W.1 is not sufficient to hold that she had lent money to the respondent. The complainant has not been able to show any material to indicate that he has got so much money on the relevant dates to lend as claimed by her. Thus the complainant has not proved that the cheques in question were issued for the discharge of legally enforceable debt. The appellant has not proved his case for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The view taken by the Trial Court is permissible on the evidence on record. The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is not perverse. The reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified. There is no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.
Issues:
Appeal against acquittal in two cases involving dishonored cheques. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the order of acquittal in two cases related to dishonored cheques. The complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed and failed to repay a total of ?10,00,000, leading to the issuance of two post-dated cheques. The respondent, however, claimed the cheques were given as security for a property purchase agreement. 2. The complainant contended that the respondent did not respond to the legal notice and presented a receipt as evidence, which the respondent disputed. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent due to lack of evidence, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in its assessment of evidence. 3. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the cheques were security for a property deal, supported by a sale deed and a receipt. The evidence presented aimed to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden of proof to the complainant. 4. The Trial Court, following the principles in RANGAPPA vs. SRI MOHAN and KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT vs. DATTATRAYA G. HEGDE, required the respondent to establish a preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption. The evidence provided by the respondent was deemed sufficient to counter the presumption of debt. 5. The complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt through reliable evidence. The absence of documentation supporting the alleged loan, combined with the inability to demonstrate the availability of funds for lending, weakened the complainant's case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court's assessment of evidence was not perverse, citing the reluctance to interfere with judgments of acquittal unless they are patently erroneous. Following the precedent in MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the acquittal verdict.
|
