2016 (1) TMI 139 - HC - Indian Laws

Rebuttal of presumption - Complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Bounce due to payment stopped by drawer - discharge of liability - Held that - during the cross-examination, the complainant has not given reply on so many material questions to know whether complainant was knowing the accused or not. Again, complainant is the resident of Sri Muktsar Sahib whereas the accused is resident of Sri Ganganagar. The defence version given by the accused is probable and rebuts the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - The judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed by learned JMIC, Sri Muktsar Sahib, is correct, as per law and evidence - accused-respondent was acquitted. - Decided against the complainant / appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Evidence evaluation by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
- Defence version and witness testimonies presented by the accused.
- Cross-examination discrepancies and residence mismatch between complainant and accused.

Issue 1: Application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The judgment dealt with an application filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against the respondent challenging the acquittal judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The applicant contended that the accompanying appeal was likely to succeed based on the grounds presented in the application.

Issue 2: Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The complainant alleged that the accused had issued a cheque that was returned unpaid, triggering legal action. However, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused by giving the benefit of doubt and holding that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been rebutted. The court noted discrepancies in the evidence, including the lack of specific loan details, absence of security documents, and failure to produce income tax returns or account books to support the transaction.

Issue 3: Evidence evaluation by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib
The Judicial Magistrate, after evaluating the evidence, found that the defence version presented by the accused was probable and effectively rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court highlighted that the complainant failed to provide satisfactory replies during cross-examination and noted inconsistencies in the residence details of the complainant and the accused.

Issue 4: Defence version and witness testimonies presented by the accused
The accused presented a detailed defence, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence to support the claim that there was an agreement involving a significant sum of money between the complainant's brother and the accused. The defence witnesses corroborated the version that cheques were issued as security in the context of a failed land sale agreement, leading to the dispute and subsequent legal action.

Issue 5: Cross-examination discrepancies and residence mismatch between complainant and accused
The court observed discrepancies in the complainant's responses during cross-examination and highlighted the geographical mismatch between the residence of the complainant and the accused. The defence's version regarding the failed land sale agreement and the misuse of cheques by the complainant's brother to file a false complaint against the accused was considered plausible, leading to the conclusion that the findings of the Judicial Magistrate were based on evidence and not perverse.

In conclusion, the application seeking leave to appeal was dismissed as the court found no grounds to challenge the correctness of the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib, based on the evaluation of evidence and legal provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.