9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1412 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - acquittal of the respondent - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - The respondent has led sufficient evidence to prove that his cheque book containing signed and unsigned cheque was lost. On 30.8.2010 the respondent in fact had not only lodged complaint to his banker Ext. D-1 but had also lodged a complaint with the police Ex.DW-3/A. The version putforth by the respondent is duly corroborated by DW-1 Kusam Chand, Branch Manager, Kangra Central Cooperative Bank , Katrain and DW-3 HHC Uttam Chand - Apart from the above, in case the appellant/complainant had in fact supplied milk to the respondent, even then the least that was expected from him was to have maintained some accounts. There is no illegality with the orders passed by the learned Court below whereby the respondent has been acquitted - even the presumption as is attached to the Negotiable Instruments Act under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act is of no assistance to the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Appellant's appeal against acquittal - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act - Rebuttal of presumption - Evidence of loss of cheque book by respondent - Failure to provide specific details of transaction by appellant - Lack of accounts maintained by appellant. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh pertains to an appeal filed by the appellant, who was the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant alleged that the respondent issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant contended that the findings of the trial court were perverse as it did not consider the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, which shifts the onus to the respondent to establish a probable defense. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed trial. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the complaint, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the respondent was rightly acquitted due to a false case against him. The court examined Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, emphasizing the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque unless proven otherwise. Referring to the case law of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, the court reiterated the principles of presumption under the Act and the rebuttal thereof. The court highlighted that the accused can contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability to rebut the presumption under Section 139. The court emphasized that the accused must raise a probable defense to create doubts about the debt or liability. The court found that the appellant failed to provide specific details of the transaction and did not maintain proper accounts. The respondent presented evidence of the loss of the cheque book, which was corroborated by witnesses. Consequently, the court held that the respondent's acquittal was justified, and the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act did not assist the appellant. The court concluded that there was no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In summary, the judgment delves into the application of the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden of proof on the parties, and the importance of providing specific details and maintaining proper records in cases involving dishonor of cheques. The court's detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles led to the dismissal of the appeal and upheld the respondent's acquittal.
|
