Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (2) TMI 886 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Appeal against judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
The appellant-complainant appealed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that he advanced a hand loan of ?4.00 Lakhs to the accused, who issued two post-dated cheques for repayment. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, concluding that the complainant failed to prove the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in its judgment by not considering the admitted signatures on the cheques and questioning the complainant's financial capacity. The appellant argued that despite discrepancies in the legal notice period, the complaint was validly filed. The appellant sought to convict the accused by challenging the trial court's decision.

Upon review, it was noted that the complainant did not specify the date of the loan advancement or cheques issuance in the complaint. The court questioned the plausibility of advancing a substantial loan without security or interest. The complainant's financial capacity was also scrutinized, revealing inconsistencies in his claims and lack of evidence to support his income sources. Additionally, a civil suit history between the parties raised doubts about the loan transaction's credibility. The court highlighted discrepancies in the complainant's assertions and lack of clarity regarding the cheques' purpose, casting doubt on the complainant's intentions and financial standing.

The court emphasized that the accused effectively rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by presenting evidence challenging the complainant's financial capacity. Referring to legal precedents, the court reiterated that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused only needs to establish doubts on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the complainant's failure to substantiate his financial status shifted the burden of proof to him, which he could not meet. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was just, considering the evidence and circumstances, and upheld the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

In the final order, the court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of acquittal issued by the trial court. The appellant's arguments were deemed meritless, and the accused remained acquitted of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates