Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 763 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - existence of enforceable debt or not - acquittal of the accused - corroborative evidences or not - signature of the cheque is denied or not - Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- The oral evidence can be manufactured and that is why if a transaction is created in writing, then, the written document must be produced. The fact is also noted that the respondent no. 2, being the accused, supported the version of the complainant that he had given a written declaration on a stamp paper, but, it was only for borrowing a loan of ₹ 50,000/- and not for borrowing ₹ 2 lakh as according to respondent no. 2 he had never taken such loan from the complainant. The learned trial Judge has suspected the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence that he had any transaction with the respondent no. 2 after 2012. Learned trial court also held that the complainant has failed to establish that he had enforceable debt to the respondent no. 2. The learned trial court also disbelieved the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has suppressed the written declaration without any explanation, which was the best evidence to substantiate the exact date and time as well as the quantum of loan, the respondent no. 2 had borrowed from the complainant. There are no wrong with the findings of the learned trial court as to why the complainant had suppressed the said written declaration when it could have been the best evidence to substantiate his allegation that the respondent no. 2 had borrowed ₹ 2 lakh from him in the year 2018. That apart, the respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that he repaid ₹ 50,000/- to the complainant which was also corroborated by DW-2, Rupak Debnath, and further evident from the money receipt - the view taken by the learned trial court is a possible and probable view. As such, the view of the learned trial court should not be disturbed, particularly, when it is a case of acquittal when the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets further re-inforced or fortified. Appeal dismissed.
|