9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 829 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque - insufficiency of funds - Offences under Section 138 of the NI Act - whether an appeal can be maintained against the judgment of acquittal for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act before the jurisdictional Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 374 Cr.P.C.? Held that - Since it was a case of acquittal judgment passed by the jurisdictional court relating to the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant could have preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. and thereafter for special leave to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The First appellate court, without having any jurisdiction as contemplated under the Cr.P.C., has entertained the appeal relating to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.24880/2 007 and hence, the impugned judgment in Crl.A.725/2010 is passed without having any jurisdiction. The First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.725/2010, erroneously has reversed the acquittal judgment held by the Trial Court in C.C.24880/2007 without any jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., where the appeal has to lie before this court in a judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court - appeal allowed.
Issues:
Appeal against judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, Jurisdiction of First Appellate Court, Burden of proof on complainant. Analysis: 1. Appeal against judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act: The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.725/2010, which reversed the acquittal judgment by the Trial Court in C.C.No.24880/2007. The case involved an accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) based on a loan obtained by the accused and her husband, with a subsequent dishonored cheque leading to legal proceedings. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, but the First Appellate Court convicted her, imposing a fine and compensation to the complainant. The appellant contended that the First Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the acquittal judgment, as it should have been appealed before the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. This issue was crucial in determining the validity of the appeal process and the subsequent judgment. 2. Jurisdiction of First Appellate Court: The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the acquittal judgment without proper jurisdiction. The appellant cited legal precedents and highlighted the hierarchy of courts for appeals in cases of conviction and acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act. The appellant emphasized that the complainant should have appealed to the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. instead of approaching the First Appellate Court directly. The lack of jurisdiction on the part of the First Appellate Court was a significant factor leading to the appeal and subsequent challenge of the judgment. 3. Burden of proof on complainant: The appellant also raised the issue of the burden of proof on the complainant regarding the loan transaction and the issuance of the dishonored cheque. Citing the case of John K. Abraham vs. Simon C. Abraham, the appellant argued that the complainant must demonstrate the availability of funds for the loan, the authenticity of the transaction, and the obligation of the accused to honor the payment as agreed. This issue was crucial in assessing the validity of the complainant's claims and the subsequent legal actions taken against the accused. In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka, in the judgment delivered by Mr. K. Somashekar J., set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.725/2010 and confirmed the acquittal judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.24880/2007. The decision was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court to entertain the appeal against the acquittal judgment, highlighting the importance of following the proper legal procedures in appeals under Section 138 of the NI Act. The burden of proof on the complainant and the jurisdictional issues were central to the analysis and eventual outcome of the case.
|
