TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted. The learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2017 - Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J. Priya Zoting, Advocate (Appointed) for the Appellant Shri S. N. Nandeshwar, Advocate for the Respondent JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 8.5.2006 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli in Criminal Case No. 1796/2005, whereby learned trial Judge acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2] Heard Smt. Priya Zoting, Advocate (Appointed) for the appellant and Mr. S. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused. 5] The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 6] The learned trial Judge on analysis of the evidence and after hearing both sides, acquitted the accused as aforesaid. 7] In order to prove his case, the complainant has examined himself and one witness who was Joint Accountant in the Bank. The complainant has deposed before the Court as per the contents in the complaint. The complainant has categorically stated that the accused had issued cheques (Exh.14 to Exh.17) dated 1.9.2004, 1.10.2004, 1.11.2004 and 1.12.2004 respectively for ₹ 2,000/. On 31.3.2005 when the cheques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Exh.36). No doubt, the testimony of PW2 indicates that the cheques tendered by the complainant and issued by the accused were bounced. 10] It is the specific case of the accused as seen from his evidence that the complainant had lent him amount of ₹ 10,000/on interest and had taken from him six blank cheques towards security. According to the accused, the complainant withdrew the amount of ₹ 10,000/from the account of the accused and, therefore, the accused owe no amount to the complainant. The accused, admitted that he had taken handloan of ₹ 10,000/from the complainant in the year 2002. However, he denied that he had taken any amount from the complainant thereafter. 11] It is well settled that when two different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds in the account.Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence and on considering the relevant attending circumstances, it is found that two views are possible, one for acquitting the accused and other for convicting the accused, in such a situation, rule of prudence should guide the High Court, not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial Court, unless confusion of the trial Court drawn on evidence on record are found to be unreasonable and perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal . 16] No illegality or perversity noticed as such in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the order: ORDER i] The appeal filed by the original complainant is hereby dismissed. ii] The fees, payable to learned counsel Smt. Priy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
