2018 (5) TMI 491 - HC - Indian Laws

Liability of respondent to pay the cheque amount - Held that - Trial Court rightly held that the petitioner failed to prove that there was any legal liability of the respondent to pay the cheque amount and dismissed the complaint, thereby acquitting the respondent - petition dismissed.

Summary

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

Analysis:
The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the respondent had issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The petitioner claimed an amount of ?15,93,063 was due for job work performed. Despite issuing a legal notice, the respondent failed to make the payment, leading to the complaint.

The petitioner presented evidence, including the original cheque, return memo, legal notice, postal receipt, and complaint. The respondent, in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed that the cheque was undated and issued as security, denying receipt of the legal notice.

Witnesses were examined, including V.D. Sharma from ICICI Bank, Atul Kumar from AIIMS, Suresh Kr. Gupta from Syndicate Bank, and Akash Bhardwaj, who provided various statements and reports related to the case.

The Trial Court found that the petitioner failed to establish the legal liability of the respondent to pay the cheque amount. The court noted discrepancies in the evidence, such as the lack of proper documentation reflecting transactions and the statute of limitations issue regarding the bills from 2006. Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent, a decision upheld as legally sound and not warranting interference.

The High Court, upon review, dismissed the leave to appeal petition, thereby affirming the Trial Court's decision of acquitting the respondent.