TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 1.6.2011 passed by the learned ACMM-I, North-West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, dismissing the complaint of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), acquitting the respondent/accused. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent/accused, alleging therein that he was known to the father of the respondent/accused, being the Secretary of Creative Video Films Welfare Society. It has been alleged that the appellant gave a personal friendly loan of ` 9,00,000/- to the respondent/accused, who was in need of the same, by borrowing a sum of ` 4,50,000/- from his father, a sum of ` 2,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax payee and maintains books of accounts regularly about his income and expenditure, but he had not shown the loan given to the respondent/accused. He neither did mention, either in the complaint or in the evidence, the date, month or the year when he was approached by the respondent/accused for the grant of loan nor did he obtain any receipt from the respondent/accused of having taken the loan. The defence of the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that there were five blank cheques duly signed by him, which were handed over to the appellant, as he had promised to get the loan of the respondent sanctioned under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana. The respondent examined himself as DW1 and supported his own defence. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheque, is with a different ink. This has been considered by him to be the sufficient reason to draw an inference regarding the probability of the genuineness of the defence of the respondent/accused and acquit him. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the impugned order. 8. I find myself in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned ACMM that before a person is convicted for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the cheque in question, which has been made as a basis for prosecuting the respondent/accused, must have been issued by him in the discharge of his liability or a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
