TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame to a definite conclusion that, the appellant is not able to proved the offence - the accused was acquitted. The acquittal order upheld - appeal dismissed. - CRL.A.No.1329 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL FOR THE RESPONDENT : R1 BY ADV. SRI.BLESSON ANTONY R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 1389/2003, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Aluva. The above case is initiated by the appellant against the 1 st respondent for prosecuting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that, the accused rebuttted the presumption. Therefore, the accused is acquitted. The relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment is para 17 to 24 which is extracted hereunder: 17. As stated earlier the specific case of complainant is that the transaction had occurred in 2003. But Ext. D11 shows that no licence had been issued to accused to conduct business in textile items for the year 2003. There is no case for P.W.1 that accused had business in any other place other than the one stated in Ext. D11. 18. The normal practice is to conduct business only on obtaining licence for the same. It cannot be considered in ordinary course that accused had been conducting business in violation to the normal procedure mandated by la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e produced by P.W.1 to support Ext. P9 series. This is more so as accused specifically denies Ext. P9series. 23. The attempt of accused to rebut the presumption u/s 139 N.I. Act must be stated to have succeeded in this case. The case of complainant that Ext. P1 was issued by accused for Ext. P9(c) bill cannot be accepted in view of Ext. D9 to D11. So also the contention of complainant that, Ext. P9(e) is signed by accused from the shop of complainant at Ernakulam when Ext. D8 shows differently also cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that P.W.1 has not raised any objection to Ext. D1 to D11 nor has disputed the same in any manner. 24. From the above, the case of complainant that accused had purchased items for Ext. P1 amount and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
