2018 (9) TMI 991 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque due to insufficiency of funds - case of the appellant is that the appellant has proved the case that the respondent borrowed a sum of ₹ 75,000/- from the appellant and issued the cheque and on presentation, the subject cheque was returned - Held that - The appellant had no money to pay ₹ 75,000/- to the respondent. The appellant has suppressed these transactions and stated that the respondent received a sum of ₹ 75,000/- from the appellant and issued the cheque and the respondent approached him personally and requested to present the cheque once again therefore the second time, presented the cheque dated 16.01 2008. Even that fact has not been proved by the appellant and simplified in order to make the cause of action and also the limitation and he has stated that when the first time returned, since the respondent requested the appellant to present the cheque once again hence he has not sent the notice and once again, he represented the cheque. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dishonor of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Appeal against the judgment passed by Additional District Sessions Judge.
3. Consideration of evidence and facts presented during trial.
4. Denial of means of the appellant by the respondent.
5. Failure to prove the case by the appellant.
6. Legality and perversity in the findings of the first Appellate Court.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a lorry broker, lent a sum to the respondent who issued a cheque that was dishonored twice. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court convicted the respondent, but the Additional District Sessions Judge reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant contended that the respondent borrowed money and issued the cheque, which was not denied by the respondent. The appellant argued that the first Appellate Court failed to consider this crucial fact, prompting the present appeal.

3. During the trial, the appellant presented evidence including the original cheque, bank statements, and legal notices. The trial Court convicted the respondent based on this evidence. However, the first Appellate Court overturned this decision, emphasizing the lack of denial of the signature by the respondent.

4. The respondent denied the means of the appellant, claiming the money borrowed was for purchasing a lorry. The respondent detailed the transactions with various individuals involved in the lorry purchase, stating that the cheque was part of the payment process for the lorry.

5. The respondent argued that the appellant misrepresented the transaction, asserting that the appellant did not lend the money but was involved in the lorry purchase. The respondent claimed that the appellant failed to prove the money lending aspect and that the first Appellate Court correctly found in his favor.

6. The High Court upheld the decision of the first Appellate Court, stating that there was no illegality or perversity in its findings. The Court noted the possibility of extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent and dismissed the Criminal Appeal based on the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court.