2024 (4) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheque - Legally recoverable debt or liability - respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act - want of supporting certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act - inadmissible evidence - HELD THAT - There is evidence in the form of ledger book Ex. AW-1/1 which shows the supply of material by the respondents/accused to the complainant. That apart there is also an admission of the complainant in his cross-examination that the accused used to sell goods to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant failed to produce and prove the bill and invoices raised against the accused. He also failed to prove the statement of account despite admitting that he maintains the account statement and the bills regarding supply of material to the accused were entered in the account statement. The view taken of the evidence by the learned Trial Court is a plausible view and no perversity has been pointed out in the same. It is trite law that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the view of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. There are no infirmity in the impugned judgment and no interference is warranted - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was dismissed, and the respondent/accused was acquitted. The main issues involved were the dishonor of two cheques, the defense raised by the accused, the evidence presented by both parties, and the admissibility of the ledger account.

Summary:
The appellant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act alleging dishonor of two cheques issued by the respondent for amounts of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2 lacs. The appellant contended that the respondent used to take raw materials on credit. The respondent raised a defense stating that the cheques were not issued by him and that the appellant used to take goods from him, filling in the cheques himself. The Trial Court found that the respondent had probabalized his defense and that the appellant failed to produce bills or invoices. The ledger account produced by the appellant was deemed inadmissible due to lack of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The Trial Court held that the accused had rebutted the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, shifting the onus to the appellant to prove the cheques were issued for a legally recoverable debt. However, the appellant failed to produce bills or invoices, and the ledger account was not properly proved. The Trial Court acquitted the accused based on the lack of evidence to prove the debt or liability. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that the view taken was plausible and interference was not warranted. The appeal was dismissed, finding no merit in challenging the acquittal judgment.