TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2018 - Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. For the Appellant : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. naveen K. Bhardwaj, Adv. ORDER SURESHWAR THAKUR, JUDGE(ORAL). The instant appeal stand directed, against, the verdict rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti, at Kullu, in criminal case No. 142-1 of 2011, whereunder, she returned findings of acquittal, upon, the accused in respect of charges framed, under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist. The accused is a businessman, dealing in sale and purchase of green vegetables/seed/potatos, fruits etc. carrying this bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplainant requested the accused to make payment, but to no avail. Ultimately, on 22.2.2011, the complainants issued legal notice Ext. C-4 through registered post as well as UPC calling upon him to make payment of cheque amount. The accused however, instead of making of payment of the cheque amount, gave false reply, through his counsel. 3. The complainant led preliminary evidence, before the learned trial Magistrate, and, thereafter the accused was directed to be summoned, for, his committing, an, offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. After securing the presence of accused, the learned trial Magistrate, put, notice of accusation, under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, vis- -vis the accused, whereto he pleaded not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The respondent/accused, issued a cheque, vis- -vis, the complainant. The afore cheque bears No. TPX876991, of, 24.11.2010, and, carries, therein a sum of ₹ 1,66,000. The afore cheque stood issued against the saving bank account No. 2216000100012876, maintained by the respondent/accused with Punjab National Bank, Jari, Tehsil and District Kullu. The issuance of the aforesaid cheque, as comprised in Ext. C-1, was, vis - vis the sale price, towards peas and potatoes, delivered, by the complainant, at the commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquiescing(s), existing in the cross-examination, of, the complainants, the learned trial Judge yet concluded that with the statutory presumption, borne in Section 139, of, the Negotiable Instrument Act, provision(s) whereof stand extracted hereinafter: 139. Presumption in favour of holder -It shallbe presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability. (i) rather enjoining qua, hence, the issuance, of, the dishonored negotiable instrument, being towards a legally enforceable or recoverable debt or liability, as arose, from, a, commercial transaction, interse, the petitioner herein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention, does not warrant, its being accepted, given the respondent/accused, making a feeble denial qua the scribing(s), of, amount(s) thereon, both in words and figures, and, also the signatures, existing thereon, all rather not holding authenticity. However, when he failed to, thereafter, move an appropriate application, before the learned trial Magistrate, for an opt opinion being elicited, from the handwriting expert concerned, thereupon, a conclusion, is begotton, qua a) not only his authentic signatures, existing on cheques, b) also, qua scribing(s), in, words and figures, of, amounts thereon, being in his hand. Corollary whereof is that the aforesaid propagation, is, rendered meritless, and also hence the afore statutory presumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
