2017 (10) TMI 458 - HC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - It cannot be said that the accused issued the cheques (Exh.14 to Exh.17) on the given dates to the complainant towards discharge of debt or liability on him. It is, therefore, clear that those cheques were not issued by the accused, in accordance with the provisions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the instant case, the cheques were issued towards security and guarantee and those cheques were not issued for discharge of debt or liability of the accused. Thus, the provisions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted. The learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

2. Complainant's Case: The complainant alleged that the accused received handloans and issued cheques that were dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to a legal complaint under Section 138.

3. Witness Testimonies: The complainant and a bank employee testified regarding the issuance and dishonor of the cheques, supporting the complainant's claims.

4. Accused's Defense: The accused contended that the cheques were given as security, not for debt repayment, and denied owing any amount to the complainant.

5. Judgment: The trial judge acquitted the accused based on the evidence presented, emphasizing that the cheques were for security, not debt discharge.

6. Legal Analysis: The judgment highlighted that for an offense under Section 138, the cheque must be for discharge of a debt or liability, which was not the case here.

7. Precedent: Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, the judgment reiterated the principle of not disturbing acquittals unless trial court errors are unreasonable or perverse.

8. Conclusion: Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court's decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay legal fees.