2018 (9) TMI 993 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque due to insufficiency of funds - repayment of loan - section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - During the examination, the respondent has totally denied the charges - Held that - During the examination, respondent/accused has clearly denied the compliant lodged against him and also there was enquiry against him and did not appear before the police station and also during the examination not at all spoken about the compliant given before the Police Station. But whereas he has categorically stated that several incident took place in the Police Station, Chennai and the evidence about incidents in police station out of memory cannot be acceptable one and especially, the respondent/accused given a reply in EX.B6 stating that already he lodged a complaint viz., Ex.B7- Ramanathapuram Police Station. Therefore, the First Appellate Court found that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands, before the date of issuance of alleged cheque, there was a dispute between the husband of the respondent and the appellant. The trial Court failed to consider this aspects and accepted the case of the appellant and the first Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and found that there is suspicion and held that appellant has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the respondent. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment in C.A.No.58 of 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C Act cases, Coimbatore.
2. Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Appeal against acquittal.
4. Dispute regarding repayment of loan and dishonored cheque.
5. Evidence presented by both parties during trial.

Analysis:

1. The appellant claimed that the respondent borrowed a sum of ?1,50,000 on 20.03.2003 and executed a pronote for repayment with interest at 24% per annum. The respondent failed to repay the loan despite demands, leading to the issuance of a dishonored cheque. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The respondent appealed the conviction, and the first Appellate Court found that the appellant failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the respondent. The appellant then filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal.

3. The appellant reiterated the loan agreement and non-repayment by the respondent, who only paid interest until a certain date and issued a post-dated cheque for the principal amount. The appellant presented evidence including the promissory note, dishonored cheque, legal notice, and acknowledgments, while the respondent presented documents related to a prior police complaint and settlement agreement.

4. The respondent denied the allegations and highlighted a prior dispute between the appellant and respondent's husband, suggesting a lack of clean hands on the appellant's part. The first Appellate Court considered this aspect, leading to the acquittal based on the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

5. The High Court upheld the first Appellate Court's decision, emphasizing the principle of benefiting the doubt to the accused in case of conflicting views. The judgment of the trial court was not confirmed, and the criminal appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the respondent.