2020 (5) TMI 312 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - discharge of legally enforceable debt, arising from a chitty transaction - offence u/s 138 of NI Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Court below over looked the fact that the accused was the guarantor to the chitty transaction. The chitty transaction by the husband of the accused is not in dispute. On the other hand, the trend of the cross examination showed that PW1 was not cross examined at length and except making a vague suggestion that the cheque was not handed over by the accused, no further defence was setup - There is nothing on record to show that the husband and wife were at logger heads or that they were living separately. Her version that, the signature on the cheque was forged by the husband was not seen put to PW1 in cross examination. On the other hand, her contention is falsified from the very fact that, she has gone to the extent of stating that even the postal acknowledgment produced along with the complaint was forged and produced by the complainant themselves. It seems that the court below did not correctly evaluate the evidence in its correct perspective. The court below did not take into consideration Exts.P3 to P6 documents - the matter needs to be considered afresh by the court below on the basis of the evidence already on record and the further evidence, if any, which both sides propose to adduce - Matter on remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
2. Evaluation of evidence presented by the complainant and accused.
3. Consideration of the legal principles under Section 139 of the NI Act.
4. Request for introducing additional evidence in the form of Annexure R1(a).
5. Discrepancies in the original records and copies of statements presented.
6. Admissibility of electronic evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a dishonored cheque towards a chitty transaction debt, leading to the complaint being filed.

2. The evidence presented included documents and witness statements. The Court below dismissed the complaint, finding the accused not guilty. The appellant challenged this decision, highlighting discrepancies and contesting the evaluation of evidence.

3. The Court analyzed the evidence provided by the complainant's witness, PW1, regarding the chitty transaction and the dishonored cheque. The Court noted the contentions raised by both sides and evaluated the legal principles under Section 139 of the NI Act.

4. A request was made to introduce additional evidence, Annexure R1(a), which was supported by arguments regarding discrepancies in the original records and copies of statements presented during the trial.

5. The Court considered the admissibility of electronic evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The discrepancies in the records and statements were pointed out, leading to a need for reevaluation of the evidence.

6. Ultimately, the Court set aside the judgment of the lower Court and remanded the case for a fresh consideration based on the available evidence and any further evidence to be presented. Both parties were given an opportunity to adduce additional evidence, and the Court directed the lower Court to pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the key points and the Court's decision to remand the case for further consideration based on the evidence presented.

← Previous Next →