Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 761 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - existence of debt or not - onus to prove - rebuttal of presumption of innocence - HELD THAT:- It is clear that Sita Ram Verma was not authorized as per the resolution of the Board of Directors' of the Company nor he was a Principal Officer of the Company and his title to maintain the present complaint was to be considered vis-à-vis. his capacity to depose in the Court of law. Though, this Court may proceed with the presumption that he was having authority to proceed with the complaint as he was working with the Company. Whether the onus which shifted on the complainant that the cheque was not issued for consideration and it was only a security amount has been discharged? - HELD THAT:- The answer is that onus was not discharged as the Company which is supposed to maintain the accounts of which are to be maintained in the regular course of business for all intents and purposes should have shown the sale and those documents should have been produced by the complainant company in the Court, as the sale would have been the consideration for the cheque. Failure of the same shows that the cheque was only issued as a security. The witnesses of the complainant nowhere able to prove that the cheque was for the supplies made and it was for consideration - this Court holds that after applying the law that the findings as recorded by the learned court below call for no interference even after re-appreciating the evidence. It has been held in K PRAKASHAN VERSUS PK SURENDERAN [2007 (10) TMI 551 - SUPREME COURT], that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. Thus, the appellant/complainant-Company has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality and infirmity in the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court - appeal dismissed.
|