Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1308 - MADRAS HIGH COURTCheque bounced due to insufficient funds - onus to prove that cheque was given against legally enforceable debt - Complaint in question under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- Since the averment made in Ex.P.4 is totally contra to the evidence given by P.W.1, it is very clear that on the side of the complainant, inconsistent pleas have been raised. The defence put forth on the side of the accused is that the complainant has used to run a chit, wherein the accused has become one of its subscribers. Under the said circumstances, the cheque in question has been given to the complainant. Considering the fact that on 13.10.2011, a sum of ₹ 40,000/- has been given to the husband of the complainant, P.W.2, by the accused and the same has been withdrawn and also considering that with regard to source of money, no consistent evidence is available on the side of the complainant, the defence put forth on the side of the accused can very well be accepted. The trial court, without considering the payment of ₹ 40,000/- made on 13.10.2011 in favour of P.W.2 and also without considering that on the side of the complainant with regard to source of money, no consistent evidence is available, has erroneously found the accused guilty under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. But, the first appellate court, after considering the vital infirmities found on the side of the complainant, has rightly found that the cheque in question has not been given in connection with legally enforceable debt. In view of the discussions made earlier, this Court has not found any merit in the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/complainant and altogether, the present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
|