2022 (7) TMI 1025 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - funds insufficient - discharge of legally subsisting liability or not - Acquittal of the accused - section 138 of NI Act - whether complaint is barred by time limitation or not - HELD THAT - This is an appeal against the order of acquittal. This Court, considering an appeal against an order of acquittal, would upturn the findings of the lower Appellate Court, if only the same is not a possible view. In this regard, as far as the first finding of the Trial Court, regarding the period of limitation and presentation is concerned, even though the Court staff was examined by the accused, he has stated that he was not the concerned staff during the relevant period. The complainant states that the complaint was presented before the appropriate Court and it was returned. Not making of initials and seal can be a mistake of the Court, for which, the complainant cannot be found fault with. Even if there is a delay in representation, still the original date of complaint is only to be taken into account for the purpose of the limitation. Second, it is also held that the mistake of the Court cannot be put against the complainant, the said findings of the lower Appellate Court that the complaint is barred by limitation is not a possible view and is legally erroneous and therefore, the said findings cannot be sustained. Apart from the question of limitation, the lower Appellate Court, while re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, had rightly observed that the contention of the accused that the complainant is a sleeping partner of the Concern M/s. Ramesh Paper Marts was not at all denied by the complainant and therefore, this Court is of the view that the contention of the complainant that the accused was introduced through one of his friends in Chennai, in the year 2008, is unbelievable. The very fact that the accused had initiated criminal proceedings even though belatedly and even after referral by the Police, filed a protest petition and thereafter, filed a private complaint, especially when he has issued stop payment for the cheque, creates a doubt in the case of the complainant so as to make out a probable defence that the cheque was not issued on 07.07.2009 at Chennai in the manner as projected by the complainant. Further, the Appellate Court also held that in view of the probable defence and in the absence of further proof towards the advancing of loan and discharge of legally subsisting liability, has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish his case about the legally enforceable liability and acquitted the accused. Thus, even though the learned Counsel for the appellant was able to dislodge the finding regarding the limitation by projecting a clear-cut case, the finding of the lower Appellate Court, with regard to the merits after considering the factors and the discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant, coupled with the evidence adduced by the accused, cannot be upturned by this Court in the appeal against acquittal, as on the appreciation of the evidence, such a view by the lower Appellate Court is possible. There are no merits in this Criminal Appeal, against the order of acquittal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Presentation of Complaint and Limitation
- The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the accused issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds.
- The Trial Court found the accused guilty and imposed a sentence, but the Appellate Court acquitted the accused.
- The appellant argued that the complaint was presented within the limitation period, even though it was initially presented before the wrong court.
- The defense contended that the complaint was barred by limitation due to delays in representation.
- The High Court held that the lower Appellate Court's finding on limitation was legally erroneous as the original date of complaint presentation should be considered for limitation purposes, not the representation date.

Issue 2: Merits of the Case
- The Appellate Court considered discrepancies in evidence, including the relationship between the complainant and accused, stop payment requests, and the filling of the cheque by a third party.
- The Appellate Court doubted the genuineness of the loan transaction due to inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and actions.
- The defense raised a probable defense, highlighting the lack of proof for the liability and the accused's actions after the alleged offense.
- The High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, stating that the lower court's view on the merits was possible, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of acquittal, emphasizing the importance of evidence consistency and the legal principles governing limitation in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.