2018 (9) TMI 1284 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of Acquittal - Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of NI Act - Held that - This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. The solitary reason assigned by the learned trial Court, hence, for recording an order of acquittal, upon, the accused, is, anvilled upon, the proprietary concern, nomencaltured as M/s Deepak Electrical Store, not being owned by the accused, rather, it, as depicted by Ex.DW2/A, and, by Ex.DW2/B, being owned by one Deepika Aukta. The aforesaid reason, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, is grossly fallacious; (a) the complainant, in his testification, comprised, in his examination-in-chief, rendering clear echoings, vis-a-vis, accused No.1, visiting his commercial establishment, located at Parwanoo, and, his thereat supplying electrical items, to him; (b) his making an apposite entry in his apt register(s); (c) the dishonoured negotiable instruments, respectively, borne in Ex.CW1/A, and, in Ex.CW1/B, being signatured, in his presence by the accused. The learned trial Court, merely, upon anvil, of reflections, borne, in Ex.DW2/A, and, in Ex.DW2/B, proceeded, to record, an order of acquittal upon the accused. However, the placing, of, reliance thereon, is, grossly inappropriate - this Court holds that the learned trial Court has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, suffers, from, a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the accused, alleging dishonor of cheques issued for payment of electrical goods. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the complainant's appeal.

2. The complainant argued that the trial court's acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence. The defense contended that the acquittal was justified. The High Court evaluated the evidence meticulously.

3. The trial court's sole reason for acquittal was the ownership of M/s Deepak Electrical Store by Deepika Aukta, not the accused. However, the complainant's testimony, corroborated by witnesses, indicated the accused's involvement in the transactions.

4. The High Court found the trial court's reliance on documents Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW2/B, irrelevant as they did not pertain to the bank where the cheques were drawn. The account owner, Deepak Aukta, was clearly identified as responsible for the dishonored cheques.

5. The High Court concluded that the trial court failed to appraise the evidence properly, leading to a perverse judgment. The acquittal was overturned, and the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The accused was directed to appear for sentencing on a specified date.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, evidence evaluation, and the High Court's decision to reverse the trial court's acquittal and convict the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.