2018 (9) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of Accused - Offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act - Held that - In the overall circumstances of the case negotiable instrument has to be examined in the context of relevant circumstances. The claim is made at the fag end of the trial regarding very cheque did not belong to accused, is not only misleading more particularly when there are no circumstances, explanation, the situation wherein the cheque belonging to a person other than accused has been signed by accused. Even if the claim was put forward by the accused in the beginning it would have not improved his case in the context and circumstance of the case. Accused has issued the cheque belonging to another person invariably other account of accused, signed it. Apart from the presumptions regarding holder considering be it under Section 118 or Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the representation is made by issuing cheque and by signing on it, there will not be occasion to doubt as to whether it is mentioned on the cheque that account belongs to another person - The Judgment pronouncing the acquittal of the accused passed by the learned first appellate Judge does not answer the questions of reasonability and legality and it is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the judgment dated 09.04.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.25109/2009.
2. Acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Consideration of presumptive value of the cheque and the defense taken by the accused.
4. Examination of the legal position and defense raised by the accused.
5. Comparison of signatures on the cheque and other documents.
6. Rejection of complainant's contentions and the belief in the accused's version.
7. Allegations of cheating and the scope of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
8. Evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the negotiable instrument and the accused's defense.
9. Applicability of legal provisions and reasoning in the trial and appellate judgments.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court was against the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.25109/2009, where the accused was acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal challenged the reversal of the trial court's decision and raised issues regarding the presumptive value of the cheque and the defense presented by the accused.

2. The trial court had found the accused guilty based on the complainant's evidence and documents presented. However, the appellate judge rejected the complainant's contentions and believed the accused's defense, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The appellate judge raised concerns about the offense possibly amounting to cheating rather than falling under the scope of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The appellate judge's decision was based on the belief in the accused's version, particularly regarding the ownership of the cheque and the signatures on it. The trial judge had found no grounds to support the accused's defense, while the appellate judge accepted it, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

4. The High Court analyzed the legal provisions and reasoning behind both judgments. It highlighted the importance of presenting a clear defense in legal proceedings for effective adjudication. The court emphasized the need for specific and timely disclosure of defenses to ensure a fair trial and proper examination of the case.

5. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the appellate judge's decision and confirmed the trial court's judgment, reinstating the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court criticized the appellate judge's failure to address the questions of reasonability and legality in the case, leading to the decision to overturn the acquittal and uphold the trial court's findings.

← Previous Next →