TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to ₹ 3,25,000/-. Out of the said amount a sum of ₹ 2,28,000/- was received by the complainant through Mahindra Finance on behalf of accused as a part payment of the abovesaid tractor trolley. However, for the rest of the amount, accused asked the complainant that he has no money with him and assured that he will make the balance payment within a week and in case of failure, he will pay interest at the rate of 10.5% per month. Thereafter complainant several times visited the accused for the balance amount of the tractor trolley, but accused postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Later on accused agreed to make payment and upon calculation a sum of ₹ 1,24,000/- was found due on account of balance payment of tractor and trolley as well as interest accrued on the balance amount. So, in order to discharge his legal liability accused issued a duly signed cheque bearing No. 011681 dated 30.1.2008 for a sum of ₹ 1,24,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Assandh from his account No. 5006. The complainant presented the said cheque in its bank account maintained with Central Bank of India, Branch Assandh on 30.01.2008. However, the said cheque had been di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mer Singh was authorized person on behalf of partnership firm to pursue the complaint before the Court, to appear before the Court and to depose on behalf of the firm. Once he has not been given authority by the partnership firm, then how he came in the witness box and how he came to know about the facts deposed by him against the accused. So, complainant has failed to prove on record that CW-2 was given any authority letter to appear in the Court. So, the complaint has not been persuaded by legally authorized person. No doubt originally it was filed by correct person but by at that time accused had not appeared and after appearance of the accused, complainant firm had to show the authority in favour of Jasmer Singh to appear on behalf of firm and to pursue the case in any manner. An application for substitution of complainant was moved which was allowed and amended title was filed on 16.11.2010 showing Jasmer Singh as partner of the firm, but despite all this, no authority letter has been produced on the case file showing authority in favour of Jasmer Singh to pursue the case. So, in this regard the evidence of CW-2 cannot be considered as the evidence of legally authorized person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the seizure of the vehicle and the owner has to take recourse to other legal remedies for recovery of the balance amount. In almost identical facts the Hon'ble Madras High Court in N. Rajangan vs. M/s. Centurian Bank Ltd. 2011 (1) CCC, 685 relying upon Sudha Beevi vs. State of Kerala 2011 (1) CCC 533 (Kerala) held as under: 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that where it is a hire purchase agreement or purchase on the basis of hypothecation, the same is laid down by the Kerala High Court based on the following principles:- (i) The post dated cheques issued by the hirer were supported by consideration at the time when they were issued, they had ceased to be so when the vehicle was repossessed. The consideration had failed subsequently. (ii) The post dated cheques in the hands of the owner had become instruments for which consideration had failed. (iii) As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, in order to attract the penal provision, the debt or other liability must be a legally enforceable debt or liability. If the negotiable instrument is not supported by consideration, there is no question of the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision Bench of this Court in 'State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Cri) 775', while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference 10. In Mrinal Das others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) SCC 479', decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons , for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable , it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
