9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 13.11.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, whereby, the accused-respondent has been acquitted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'). A complaint was filed against the accused-respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act stating therein that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- from the complainant in the month of February 2012 for a period of two months and in discharge of said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.015860 dated 02.05.2012 for Rs. 4,25,000/- from his account in favour of the complainant. At the time of issuance of said cheque, the accused assured the complainant that the cheque would be encashed on its present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the allegations levelled against him. In defence, the accused tendered documents i.e., Ex.D1 copy of complaint, Ex.D2 copy of statement of Sandeep and Ex.D3 copy of order passed in case titled as Sandeep vs. Yogesh. On appraisal of evidence available on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the complaint of the applicant-complainant and the accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has acquitted the accused without appreciation of evidence available on record. The version of the complainant has not been believed whereas there was sufficient evidence available on record in support of his version. All the witnesses examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made before its maturity; (e)as to order of indorsements; that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; (f)as to stamp; that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped ; (g)that holder is a holder in due course; that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him. Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed as withdrawn but it shows that the cheque in dispute is also of the same series on the basis of which, earlier complaint was filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn. It has specifically been mentioned by the trial Court that it cannot be ruled out that the cheque in dispute was not misused as taken as a defence by the accused. The complainant has failed to prove as to in which capacity, he had paid such a huge amount without any document. The complainant has also failed to prove his case and the presumption goes against him. The trial Court considered the submissions and by considering the evidence on record, no case was made out against the accused and he was acquitted of the charge. Learned counsel for the applicant is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
