2023 (11) TMI 250 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - documentary evidence not produced - admissions elicited during cross-examination - HELD THAT - The cross-examination of the complainant shows that the cheque amount exceeded the outstanding amount. The complainant stated that it was subsequently decided in the agreement that 90% of the amount would be paid at the time of dispatching machinery from his premises. However, this agreement was not placed on record - The evidence of the complainant further revealed that the total cost agreed between the complainant and the accused for dairy equipment was Rs. 10,25,000/-. The invoice (Exh.42) also establishes this fact. It is not in dispute that Rs. 7,40,000/-was paid by the accused to the complainant, and only Rs. 2,85,000/-was due from the accused. The cheque (Exh.39) is Rs. 4,95,000/-which is more than the outstanding amount from the accused. The complainant admitted this fact in his cross-examination. The complainant's case is not substantiated by documentary evidence. The total amount due of Rs. 12,93,875/-could not be proven by any bill on record. The complainant's admission during cross-examination that the cheque amount exceeded the outstanding amount was also to be taken into consideration. Given the circumstances, the observations of the Magistrate cannot be considered erroneous, especially when there is no documentary evidence and the admissions were elicited during cross-examination. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.

Summary:

The judgment of the High Court of Bombay pertained to an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. The case involved a purchase order for dairy equipment where the accused issued a cheque that was dishonored, leading to the complaint and subsequent trial.

The trial court acquitted the accused after considering the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documentary proof. The appellant challenged this decision, alleging that the cheque amount exceeded the outstanding amount due from the accused. However, the agreement specifying payment terms was not provided as evidence, and discrepancies in the amounts claimed were noted.

The appellant's cross-examination revealed that the total cost agreed upon was Rs. 10,25,000, of which Rs. 7,40,000 had been paid by the accused. The cheque amount of Rs. 4,95,000 exceeded the remaining due amount of Rs. 2,85,000, as per the evidence presented. The absence of documentary evidence supporting the total outstanding amount of Rs. 12,93,875 raised doubts regarding the appellant's claim.

Additionally, the agreement between the parties did not explicitly mention the condition of payment for the dairy equipment, leading to ambiguity in the payment terms. The testimony of a defense witness supported the contention that the remaining amount was due only after the installation of the machinery, which had not yet occurred.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the appellant's claims and the discrepancies in the amounts stated during cross-examination. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused in the case.