9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 216 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - rebuttal of prosecution - HELD THAT - It is clear that the complainant issued Ext.D1 and Ext.D2 notice. In Ext.D3 reply dated 3.11.1999, it is specifically stated by the accused that two blank cheques are with the complainant. The number of Exhibit P1 was specifically mentioned. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque on 10.11.1999. This itself creates doubt about the case of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant submitted that Ext.D4 plaint is not related to the cheque involved in this case. Even if Ext.D4 excluded, in the light of Exts.D1 to D3, it is clear that the accused rebutted the presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court considered all the aspects of the case and acquitted the accused. There is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Allegation of default in payment of chitties' instalments. 3. Issuance of a cheque returned with 'insufficient funds'. 4. Examination of witnesses and submission of documents. 5. Accused acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. 6. Appeal challenging the trial court's judgment. 7. Consideration of whether the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Dispute over the issuance and custody of the cheque. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged default in payment of chitties' instalments by the accused and his wife, leading to the issuance of a cheque for part satisfaction of the due amount. However, the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds, prompting the complainant to file a complaint. The trial court, after examining witnesses and documents, found the accused not guilty under Section 138 and acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., resulting in the filing of the current appeal. The appellant argued that the accused did commit the offence under Section 138, emphasizing the legal enforceability of the debt and compliance with formalities under the Act. The appellant contested the trial court's reliance on certain averments, claiming factual inaccuracies in the judgment. The central issue addressed was whether the accused indeed committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act, necessitating a detailed examination of the evidence and contentions presented. The court noted discrepancies regarding the issuance and custody of the cheque in question. The defence contended that the cheque was a blank one misused by the complainant, supported by notices and replies indicating the possession of blank cheques by the complainant before the alleged issuance of the cheque in dispute. The court highlighted the accused's specific mention of the cheque number in a reply, casting doubt on the complainant's case. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the accused's rebuttal of the presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the trial court's judgment. In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues surrounding the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, scrutinizing the evidence, contentions, and legal aspects to uphold the trial court's decision and dismiss the appeal.
|
