2018 (9) TMI 507 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - repayment of loan - Section 138 of NI Act - Held that - It cannot be held that the finding of the learned Trial Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence led. The legal position with regard to the interference against the judgment of acquittal is well settled that if the view by the learned Trial Court is a plausible view then in an appeal against acquittal the Appellate Court will not interfere in the same unless the finding is perverse, based on no evidence or contrary to the evidence on record. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Impleading of accused in a trial
- Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Allegations of dishonored cheque and liability
- Evidence and findings of the Trial Court
- Interpretation of the buyback agreement

Impleading of Accused in a Trial:
The petitioner impleaded four accused in the trial, but respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were declared proclaimed offenders, leading to the trial proceeding only against respondent No. 2, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Respondent No. 2 contested the complaint through its authorized representative.

Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the respondent company failed to honor a buyback agreement, resulting in a dishonored cheque. The appellant provided detailed evidence, including reminders, letters, registered letters, and a statutory demand notice, all exhibited before the Trial Court.

Allegations of Dishonored Cheque and Liability:
The respondent No. 2 raised defenses claiming no legally enforceable liability, alleging procurement of a blank signed cheque, and disputing the interest provision in the buyback agreement. The Trial Court framed questions regarding the liability of the accused, authorization to enter into agreements, and the validity of defenses against the dishonored cheque.

Evidence and Findings of the Trial Court:
The Trial Court found that the appellant failed to sell shares as per the buyback agreement terms, leading to a discrepancy in the calculated amount. It noted that the liability of the accused at the time of the cheque was crucial and could not be increased based on assumptions. The Court considered the defense regarding the signed cheque and concluded that the absence of liability for the cheque amount led to the dismissal of the complaint.

Interpretation of the Buyback Agreement:
The buyback agreement detailed the purchase and buyback of shares, with provisions for selling shares in the open market if the price exceeded a specified amount. The Trial Court highlighted the lack of mention of shares provided as security in the complaint and considered evidence regarding the market price of shares purchased.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that interference against an acquittal is only warranted if the finding is perverse, lacks evidence, or contradicts the record. The appeal was dismissed based on the Trial Court's plausible view and the absence of grounds for interference.