Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 886 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not - main contention of appellant is that, when the signature on the cheques came to be admitted, the trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused - HELD THAT:- In the entire complaint, the complainant has not at all specifically asserted about the specific date of advancement of the hand loan. It is important to note here that the loan is alleged to have been advanced in the 2nd week of January 2002, that too to the tune of ₹ 4.00 Lakhs. ₹ 4.00 Lakhs is a huge amount in 2002 and it is hard to accept the version of the complainant that he advanced such a huge amount without any security and without charging any interest. Further, he has not specifically stated the date of advancement of the alleged loan amount - according to the complaint, on the same date of advancement of loan amount, two post-dated cheques as per Exs. P1 & P2 were handed-over to complainant, which were for ₹ 2.00 Lakhs each. If at all on the same day, both cheques viz., Exs. P1 & P2 were handed-over, there is no explanation as to why the accused has issued two cheques rather than a single cheque, when the alleged loan transaction is for ₹ 4.00 Lakhs. At the out-set, the complainant has not produced any material to show that, he had the financial capacity and the cross-examination of PW. 1 clearly disclose that, his financial capacity is exposed by the accused. He has not produced any documents to show his income. Further, he claims that, he secured ₹ 3.00 Lakhs by sale of his Plot. But, no documents have been produced to substantiate this contention also - When the civil dispute between the accused and the complainant was pending, question of the complainant advancing loan does not arise at all. Apart from that, in the complaint itself no specific date of advancement of loan was given and it is evident that all along that there was a civil dispute between the parties. Further, the financial status of the complainant is also not established. Further, the accused has exposed the complainant in respect of his financial capacity. Though the complainant has claimed that he has accumulated the amount of ₹ 3.00 Lakhs by way of sale of site, but, no material is produced to substantiate this contention. On perusal of the entire records, it is evident that the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has not referred the date of payment of loan and no reasons are given for charging no interest to such a huge amount, that too during pendency of the civil litigation between the parties. Further, there is no explanation from the complainant as to why he has issued two cheques on the same day for ₹ 2.00 Lakhs each, instead of one cheque. In the decision reported in BASALINGAPPA VERSUS MUDIBASAPPA [2019 (4) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the prosecution is bound to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, but, the accused is required to rebut the presumption only on the basis of preponderance of probabilities - Admittedly in the instant case, the complainant has failed to establish his financial status. In such circumstances, the principles enunciated in the above cited decision are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The complainant has failed to prove that the alleged cheques were issued in respect of a legally enforceable debt and that he has advanced the hand loan of ₹ 4.00 Lakhs to the accused. The trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective and arrived at a just decision. In such circumstances, the judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court. As such, the appeal is devoid of any merits and needs to be rejected - Appeal dismissed.
|