2020 (11) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on to interfere with the finding of facts by the trial court - Criminal Appeal dismissed.
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM FOR THE RESPONDENT : R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B.UDAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE JUDGMENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.1597/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Aluva. The above case is initiated by the appellant against the 2 nd respondent herein for prosecuting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the trial court). 2. The prosecution case is that a sum of  .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ments Act. 7. The counsel for the accused submitted that the trial court after considering the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty. The counsel submitted that this Court may not interfere in an appeal against the acquittal in this case because the trial court considered all the oral and documentary evidence in this case. 8. The point for consideration in this case is whether the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. The trial court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower court after perusing the oral and documenta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e cheque was given for legally enforceable debt. In this case to rebut that presumption the accused gave evidence. The accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. He need bring out, only the probability of his case. 13. Learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the accused accused could not produce any document to show that he had chitty transaction with Sunil Kumar. DW1 explained that the pass book in respect of the chitty transaction was given back to Sunilkumar. Normally the pass book shall be with the subscriber. It is possible that in chitties conducted locally and without any licence, the passbook retains by the person who conducts the chitty. At this juncture it is worthwhile to note the evasive answer give .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X