Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 81 - HC - Indian LawsComplaint under Section 138,141 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act - Held that:- There has been no rejoinder caused by respondent. Ex.P2 in both cases are Statements of Account marked by respondent. Though invoice numbers have been provided in the Statement of Accounts, the particular invoices had not been marked before the trial Court. It is seen that payment to the tune of ₹ 43,07,000/- is acknowledged but dates of receipt thereof are not informed. The Statements of Account marked as Ex.P2 in both cases can only be seen as self-serving statements. Though the trial Court has accepted the Statement of Accounts, there is a specific finding of the appellate Court that the same cannot be accepted. Even so, the appellate Court makes an error of informing a finding of conviction on the basis thereof. Respondent/ complainant has admitted in cross that he has received back 576 skins. The Account Statements do not inform of any adjustment there towards. It is the contention of petitioner that in his reply notice it had been informed that about 5500 pieces of sheep nappa skins were defected. As stated supra, no rejoinder has been caused by respondent. A series of transactions between the parties is admitted. In the circumstances, the defence contention of a genuine dispute regards the dues has failed to receive consideration. The burden cast on the accused u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is light. This Court is of the view that petitioner has discharged the same. Therefore, it is for the respondent/complainant to prove the debt. This, in our considered opinion and for the reasons above informed, respondent/complainant has failed to do.
|