9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and order as well as the record in the present case. 3. The case of the complainant is that the cheque in question was issued in respect of loan of Rs. 14,50,000. No documents have been placed by the complainant on record to show payment of loan to the accused. It is seen that there is no oral or documentary evidence in respect of payment of loan to any of the accused. 4. Complainant has stated in his examination in chief that in the month of December, 2000 against loan of Rs. 14,50,000, accused No. 2 executed one letter dated 12.12.2000 in the form of promissory N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted the liability of Srushti Financer and issued the cheque. No any document creating the liability of the accused is produced on record. If the cheque is drawn by the accused without accepting liability of another in writing, it does not attract Section 138 of N.I.Act. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the case of Hiten Sagar Anr. v. IMC Ltd. Anr. 2001 (3) CCC 571 (Bom.) : 2001 Cri. LJ 4311 wherein this Court has held that: If the cheque drawn for discharge of liability of another person without creating any document, it does not come under section 138 of N.I.Act. 6. So, in view of the above reason, it is clear that on the date of cheque Ex. 15, no any evidence liability was existing against the accused and no any e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments Act and hence, it does not fasten any criminal liability upon the accused. 8. In view of the above facts, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Perusal of the evidence, I find that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 9. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 66 : 1970(2) SCC 450 and C.Anthony v. K.G.Raghavan N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
