Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1433 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt or not - benefit of acquittal - benefit of the statutory presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - witnesses not examined - alleged liability is owed to a person other than the payee - offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be attracted or not - HELD THAT:- From a reading of the complaints as well as the evidence of PW1, it can be seen that no iota of material evidence has been let in to prove the crucial fact that the complainant’s husband had necessary source of funds at the relevant time to raise such a huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for being advanced to the accused. The Apex Court in the judgment in JOHN K. ABRAHAM VERSUS SIMON C. ABRAHAM & ANOTHER [2014 (1) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in order to enable the complainant to draw the benefit of statutory presumption envisaged under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is quite heavy on the complainant to prove that he had the requisite source of funds for making borrowal of the money for the transaction in question. PW1 has claimed in her deposition that there was written agreement between the complainant’s husband and the accused which would show the alleged liability of Rs.15,00,000/- owed by the accused to her husband and that a photocopy of the said alleged sale agreement is available. But, the complainant has not produced either the original or photocopy of any such agreement. PW1 has also deposed that apart from her, there were two other independent witnesses who had seen the tendering of the three cheques by the accused to the complainant. But, none of such persons have been examined as witness in the instant case to prove such a fact. These aspects could also raise a serious suspicion in the mind of any criminal court about the very believability and genuineness of the case set up by the complainant - Except making such claims, no convincing evidence whatsoever has been let in in this case to prove even remotely any such factual aspects. Therefore, in the light of all these aspects, the irresistible conclusion that could have been arrived at by a criminal court is that it is highly unsafe to raise such a conviction in the light of serious deficiencies in prosecution of the present complaints. Both the courts below have shutout all these crucial and relevant aspects. This Court is of the firm view that the accused is entitled for the benefit of acquittal. The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in these three complaints and he is set at liberty - petition disposed off.
|