2025 (3) TMI 421 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order - Dishonour of cheque - acquittal of accused - rebuttal of presumption - HELD THAT - On perusal of the evidence produced by the applicant before the learned Trial Court the applicant has filed his examination in chief at Exh.4 and has narrated all the facts of the complaint on oath. The applicant has been cross examined at length and during the cross-examination the applicant has stated that he maintains books of accounts and pays income tax and files his Income Tax Returns. That he has not produced the extract of the entry to show that the amount is due from the accused. That he has not produced the Balance Sheet of the financial year 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and the bill produced at Exh.14 does not bear the signature of the customer. The accused has sent a reply to the notice but the same is not produced on record and he has not declared the date and the quantity of goods taken by the accused. The learned Trial Court has concluded that the applicant has not proved that the accused is doing the business of gold and silver and the applicant has not proved that the goods mentioned in the bill produced at Exh.14 were received by the accused - The accused had sent a reply to the notice and had denied all the facts stated by the applicant and had also raised the issue that his cheque book was lost before the competent authority and has raised raised a probable defence and successfully rebutted the presumption. Moreover the learned Trial Court has considered all the documents produced by the applicant and has also considered that the defence of accused is believable and applicant had not produced any cogent evidence to disbelieve the defence of accused and has not produced any evidence in support of written arguments submitted by the applicant. The applicant has failed to prove his recoverable debt and the applicant has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque in question was given as repayment of a legal debt as the cheque book with series number of the cheque was lost and a publication was also given to the competent authority. Conclusion - The appellant s failure to prove the debt and the respondent s successful defense warranted the acquittal. The present application seeking leave to present an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails and is hereby dismissed.

Summary

The present case involves an appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a case related to the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant, engaged in the business of gold and silver ornaments, alleged that the respondent, also in the same business, issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to the appellant's appeal.**Issues Presented and Considered:**1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Whether the appellant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.3. Whether the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act.**Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:**- The relevant legal framework includes Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which establish the presumption in favor of the complainant in case of dishonor of cheques.- The court interpreted the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the appellant's failure to prove the debt and the respondent's defense.- Key evidence included the bounced cheque, demand notice, and the respondent's defense claiming innocence and alleging fabrication of evidence by the appellant.- The court applied the law to the facts by assessing the credibility of the evidence and determining whether the appellant met the burden of proof.- Competing arguments centered on the appellant's assertion of proving the debt beyond reasonable doubt and the respondent's defense challenging the existence of a debt.- The court concluded that the appellant failed to prove the debt, and the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139.**Significant Holdings:**- The court cited settled principles of law regarding the presumption under Section 139 and the burden of proof on the accused to raise a probable defense.- The court emphasized that the appellant's failure to prove the debt and the respondent's successful defense warranted the acquittal.- Final determination: The application seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal.The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented, the legal framework governing negotiable instruments, and the burden of proof on both parties. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting the evidentiary standard required to establish liability in cases involving dishonored cheques.