2018 (6) TMI 1371 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - insufficiency of funds - offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused? - Whether this appeal has to be allowed? - Held that - From the very beginning, the accused has taken a consistent stand. On the contrary, the complainant has willfully suppressed the material fact. He suppressed the fact that he has received the letter from the accused even before presenting the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques. A person who is coming to the court for seeking certain relief should come with clean hands. This court is of the view that the complainant has not come with clean hands. The trial court has rightly acquitted the accused - It cannot be said that the findings of the trial court are perverse. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment of acquittal by Metropolitan Magistrate
2. Dispute over issuance of cheques and debt repayment

Issue 1: Appeal against judgment of acquittal by Metropolitan Magistrate

The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a case involving the issuance of two cheques for a debt repayment. The complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed a sum of money and issued two cheques, which were returned due to insufficient funds. The respondent denied borrowing the money and claimed that the cheques were issued as security by his brother-in-law. The complainant's evidence included the presentation of cheques, statutory notice, and reply notice. The respondent presented evidence contradicting the complainant's claims, including a loan deed and a letter requesting not to present the cheques. The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent based on the evidence presented.

Issue 2: Dispute over issuance of cheques and debt repayment

The key contention revolved around whether the respondent issued the cheques to discharge a debt or as security for his brother-in-law's loan. The appellant argued that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied as the respondent admitted issuing the cheques. However, the respondent presented evidence, including a loan deed and a letter requesting not to present the cheques, to support his claim that the cheques were security. The appellant's failure to disclose receiving the letter in the statutory notice raised doubts about the complainant's credibility. The court found that the complainant did not come with clean hands and upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's acquittal, citing precedents where consistent defense and full disclosure were crucial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, including the appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the dispute over the issuance of cheques and debt repayment, providing a thorough understanding of the case.