Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 463 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Insufficient Funds - enforcement of legally enforceable debt or not - framing of charges - rebuttal of presumption - section 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- The complaint was lodged by one Kishore Kumar, Legal Officer of the respondent company. During trial, another employee from the respondent company viz., Suresh entered into the box and examined himself as PW1. In his evidence, he stated about the issuance of cheque (Ex.P2) and dishonour of the same. But he is unable to give any answer with regard to issuance of cheque (Ex.P2), dishonour of the cheque, issuance of statutory notice (Ex.P5). PW1 not able to give details of transaction. On the other hand, he categorically confirmed that it is only Ravi, Director of the respondent company, would be the right person to give answer for the cheque and its liability. But, in this case, the said Ravi not examined as witness by the respondent company. It is not necessary, in each case, the accused has to get into the box under Section 315 Cr.P.C., and give explanation. From the available materials and by way of cross examination, the accused is only to probablize his defence and disprove his liability. In this case, the petitioner had rebutted by raising probable defence about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The same was rightly considered by the trial Court in its judgment, dated 09.08.2016 and the same is hereby confirmed. The lower appellate Court finding that the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, not rebutted, wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner, which needs interference of this Court - the petitioner is acquitted of all charges framed against him - Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
|