TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and documents filed by the appellant and in the statement of the respondent/accused, he admitted his signature over cheques of his account, as such presumption is in favour of the appellant under Section 139 of the NI Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law. In the case of NI Act, the complainant has only to prove the fact that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of any debt or liability to the complainant and under Section 139 of the Act, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability - the finding recorded by the learned Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such the complaint was filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the respondent denied all allegations levelled against him. 4. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charges punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, hence this acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, illegal and contrary to the materials available on record, as such the same is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in dismissing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint in his statement and exhibited cheques vide Ex-P/1, P/2 P/3, written memo of bank (Ex-P/4, P/5 P/6) and registered notice (Ex-P/7). In his long crossexamination, he remained firm. The PW-2 Manoj Yadav also supported the statement of the complainant. 9. The accused/respondent denied all allegations in his 313 CrPC statement, but when the Court asked in last question that if he is willing to say anything else, then he replied that the appellant had got the aforesaid cheques from his office through some person, whereas he admitted his signatures over the aforesaid cheques, as such it is clear from this answer that the respondent admitted his signature in the cheques and has not also disputed this fact that the account number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case of the accused. Therefore, there is no evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration. 11. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides as under:- 139. Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be 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, of any debt or other liability. 12. In the case in hand, the learned Trial Court did not appreciate this fact that the respondent did not deny the signature over the cheques of his account and the appellant proved this fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
