2012 (3) TMI 674 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
The appellant challenges the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Analysis:
The appellant, Mr. M.R. Choudhary, alleged that the respondent, Mangilal, failed to honor a cheque for Rs. 39,000 leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The appellant presented evidence including his testimony and six documents. In contrast, the respondent claimed to have repaid the loan through different cheques, substantiated by a bank statement. The appellant argued that a typographical error in the cheque number led to the acquittal, while the respondent contended that the presumption under Section 139 was rebutted, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant.

Court's Observations:
The learned Magistrate noted discrepancies in the cheque number mentioned by the appellant and the one submitted as evidence. The Magistrate emphasized that the repeated mention of the incorrect number raised doubts. Additionally, the Magistrate acknowledged the respondent's evidence of repayment through various cheques, effectively rebutting the presumption under Section 139. As per legal principles, once the presumption is rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the complainant, which the appellant failed to discharge.

Conclusion:
The High Court found no fault in the Magistrate's judgment, upholding the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Act. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.