2018 (12) TMI 440 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttable presumption or not - Held that - The mere factum of dishonor, of, the afore dishonoured negotiable instrument, does rear, a rebuttable presumption, qua, hence it standing issued towards, a, legally enforceable debt or liability, erupting inter se, the complainant and the accused. However, the afore presumption is rebuttable. The learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record - there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The appellant was aggrieved by the acquittal judgment pronounced by the Judicial Magistrate. The case involved an oral agreement between the appellant and the accused, a registered contractor, to share business profits on a 50% basis. The appellant financed the accused, who failed to repay a significant amount, leading to a legal dispute. The trial court found sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant presented witnesses, while the accused claimed innocence and presented his defense witnesses.

The trial court acquitted the accused, prompting the appellant to challenge the judgment. The appellant's counsel argued that the acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence, urging the court to reverse it. Conversely, the accused's counsel contended that the trial court's decision was balanced and should not be interfered with. The High Court meticulously evaluated the evidence, focusing on a dishonored negotiable instrument and the appellant's testimony regarding its issuance.

The court analyzed the evidence surrounding the dishonored instrument, considering the issuance timeline, partnership business context, and lack of supporting financial documents. It noted discrepancies in the appellant's testimony and concluded that the trial court's evaluation was thorough and not perverse. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal judgment, finding no merit in the appeal. The impugned judgment was affirmed, and all pending applications were disposed of, with instructions to return the records promptly.