2017 (12) TMI 1446 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sankari is liable to be set aside? - cheque bounced - statutory presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Held that - the trial Court had completely erred in shifting the onus of proof on the appellant/complainant. The trial Court has also misinterpreted the provisions of the Act, as well as the rulings relied upon to arrive at the conclusion of finding on the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankagiri warrants interference by this Court. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal in a case of dishonored cheque under Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant/complainant, running an automobile business, sold goods on credit to the respondent/accused. The accused issued a cheque which bounced due to insufficient funds. Despite a legal notice, the accused failed to pay, leading to a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The trial court acquitted the accused citing lack of evidence on the liability and shifting the burden of proof onto the appellant. The appellant argued that the accused admitted to regular transactions but failed to substantiate claims of enmity with another party or the cheque being handed over to the appellant fraudulently.

3. The appellant produced evidence of the transaction and the dishonored cheque. The respondent accused the appellant of not proving the credit purchase necessity and denied issuing the cheque directly. The trial court relied on the absence of account books and contradictory statements by the appellant to acquit the accused.

4. The appellant contended that the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Act must be rebutted by the accused with evidence, not just by pointing out inconsistencies in the appellant's case. The respondent's arguments failed to substantiate the alleged enmity or the cheque being given to another party.

5. The respondent's claims of not needing credit purchases and the absence of notings on bills were not adequately supported by evidence. The substantial amount of the dishonored cheque supported the appellant's claim of liability, which the trial court failed to consider.

6. The High Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to appear for sentencing. The trial court's errors in shifting the burden of proof and misinterpreting the law led to the High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal and intervene in the case.