2022 (4) TMI 763 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - existence of enforceable debt or not - acquittal of the accused - corroborative evidences or not - signature of the cheque is denied or not - Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - The oral evidence can be manufactured and that is why if a transaction is created in writing, then, the written document must be produced. The fact is also noted that the respondent no. 2, being the accused, supported the version of the complainant that he had given a written declaration on a stamp paper, but, it was only for borrowing a loan of ₹ 50,000/- and not for borrowing ₹ 2 lakh as according to respondent no. 2 he had never taken such loan from the complainant. The learned trial Judge has suspected the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence that he had any transaction with the respondent no. 2 after 2012. Learned trial court also held that the complainant has failed to establish that he had enforceable debt to the respondent no. 2. The learned trial court also disbelieved the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has suppressed the written declaration without any explanation, which was the best evidence to substantiate the exact date and time as well as the quantum of loan, the respondent no. 2 had borrowed from the complainant. There are no wrong with the findings of the learned trial court as to why the complainant had suppressed the said written declaration when it could have been the best evidence to substantiate his allegation that the respondent no. 2 had borrowed ₹ 2 lakh from him in the year 2018. That apart, the respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that he repaid ₹ 50,000/- to the complainant which was also corroborated by DW-2, Rupak Debnath, and further evident from the money receipt - the view taken by the learned trial court is a possible and probable view. As such, the view of the learned trial court should not be disturbed, particularly, when it is a case of acquittal when the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets further re-inforced or fortified. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment and order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Presumption of enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act.
- Rebuttal of presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act.
- Failure to produce best evidence - adverse inference under the Evidence Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal arose from a judgment of acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed a sum of money and failed to repay it, leading to the dishonoring of a cheque issued by the respondent.

2. The appellant argued that the presumption of enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act favored the complainant since the respondent did not deny his signature on the cheque. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the respondent's failure to rebut the presumption, coupled with evidence from the bank ledger, supported the complainant's claim.

3. The respondent, on the other hand, asserted that the presumption of enforceable debt was rebuttable under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act. The respondent highlighted discrepancies in the amount mentioned in the written declaration and the lack of production of the said document by the complainant.

4. The court examined the trial court's findings, emphasizing the importance of producing the best evidence to substantiate claims. Referring to precedents, the court noted that adverse inferences could be drawn against a party withholding crucial evidence. The court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the complainant's failure to produce the written declaration raised doubts about the claim.

5. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in cases of acquittal. Considering the evidence, witness testimonies, and legal principles, the court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's ruling and dismissed the appeal.

6. The judgment underscores the significance of producing key evidence, the rebuttal of presumptions under the NI Act, and the standard of proof required in cases under Section 138. The decision highlights the need for parties to substantiate claims with concrete evidence to establish enforceable debts and avoid adverse inferences.