2020 (1) TMI 883 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - enforceable debt and liability or not - Validity of Verdict of acquittal pronounced by the learned trial court - HELD THAT - Even though the accused has placed reliance upon Ex. Dx containing echoings vis-a-vis Ex.CW1/A becoming lost hence the banker concerned becoming requested to not honour the afore exhibit (i) nonetheless veracity of the afore echoings as borne therein becomes rather underwhelmed or eroded vis-a-vis their vigour in the face of the afore suggestions becoming hence meted to the complainant during his becoming cross-examined hence by the defence counsel. Since the afore statutory presumption is hence workable vis-a-vis the complainant and when also the afore statutory presumption hence remained un-displaced by any cogent rebuttal evidence becoming adduced by the respondent/accused (ii) besides when no cogent evidence becomes adduced vis-a-vis the complainant despite no subsisting legal enforceable debt or liability erupting inter se both yet rather Ex.CW1/A becoming issued merely as a security (iii) thereupon it becomes unflinchingly con-cludable vis-a-vis the issuance of Ex.CW1/A by the accused in favour of the complainant being towards the discharge(s) there through vis-a-vis the apposite contractually enforceable debt or other liability and appertaining to the expenditure of re-treading of tyres as conducted in the unit of the complainant. The instant appeal is allowed and the verdict impugned before this Court is set aside.

Summary

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

Analysis:
1. Facts and Allegations:
The case involves a complaint against the accused for dishonoring a cheque issued to the complainant for the discharge of outstanding liabilities. The complainant, a retreading business owner, alleged that the accused had a credit account with him and issued a cheque which was dishonored by the bank with the endorsement "Drawer has stopped the payment."

2. Trial Court Proceedings:
The trial court found sufficient material to proceed against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant and the accused presented their evidence, with the accused claiming innocence and false implication. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the accused.

3. Arguments on Appeal:
The counsel for the complainant argued that the trial court's acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence and sought a reversal to a conviction. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused contended that the acquittal was based on a balanced appreciation of evidence and should not be interfered with.

4. Presumption in Favor of Holder:
The court discussed Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes that the holder received the cheque for the discharge of a debt unless proven otherwise. The absence of effective rebuttal evidence by the accused led to the court concluding that the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt.

5. Rebuttal Evidence and Legal Presumptions:
The court highlighted that the accused failed to provide convincing rebuttal evidence, despite suggesting during cross-examination that the cheque was handed over to an employee of the complainant. The court emphasized that the accused's actions, including not contesting the handwriting on the cheque, indicated his involvement in issuing the cheque.

6. Verdict and Conviction:
The court found that the statutory presumption in favor of the complainant remained unchallenged and that the accused's reliance on certain documents was undermined by the lack of substantial evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was directed to appear for sentencing on a specified date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects, evidence evaluation, arguments presented, and the ultimate decision of the High Court to convict the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.