Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 995 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque due to insufficiency of funds - repayment of loan - section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- It is seen from Ex.P.7 that the respondent along with the appellant and others are jointly carrying on the real estate business. At one point of time, the appellant took the respondent's ICICI Bank cheque leaf and forged the same by filling up of ₹ 5,00,000/-. The respondent came to know the said fact on 04.11.2009 when it was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient of funds" and he has no money transaction with the appellant - Moreover, it is known from Ex.P.1, complaint that on 20.04.2009, the respondent met the appellant and agreed to buy a place consists of 74,655 sq.ft. and they agreed to execute a sale agreement by investing ₹ 5,05,000/- each. Accordingly, the appellant gave ₹ 5,05,000/- on 20.04.2009. But, the appellant no where either in complaint or in his evidence stated that he has received any kind of document for giving ₹ 5,05,000/- and he has failed to prove the same. Secondly, it is seen that the appellant has not given any notice when the cheque was dishonoured. Thirdly, the trial Court, while analysing the cheque, has found that the ink of the name and signature and the ink of the amount and date are different. The difference found in the cheque i.e. the ink of name and signature and the amount and date are also presumed to be in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the appellant has not established his case. Hence, the trial Court found that the respondent is entitled for acquittal and there is no need to interfere with the judgment passed by the Court below. In a criminal case, it is not necessary for the respondent/accused to disprove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. If the respondent is able to satisfy the Court by legally acceptable defence that the case of the prosecution lacks bona fide, the respondent will be entitled to the benefit of doubt - Further, when there are two views possible, one in favour of the respondent/accused and the other in favour of the appellant/complainant, the view favouring the respondent/accused should be taken into consideration in an appeal against acquittal. There is no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court - appeal dismissed.
|