TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds acquittal in section 138 NI Act case, emphasizes limited interference in appeal against acquittal</h1> <h3>Ranjit Singh Sethi Versus Abdul Jalil Shaikh Abdulla</h3> The High Court upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's decision to acquit the accused in a case involving an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable ... - Issues involved: Allegation of offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, acquittal challenged in appeal.Details of the judgment:1. The appellant filed a case against the respondent for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant claimed to have given a loan to the accused, supported by a promissory note and a post-dated cheque. The cheque was dishonored, leading to the complaint. Both parties presented evidence during the trial.2. The complainant alleged that the accused took a loan and failed to repay it, while the accused claimed to have made payments towards the loan amount. The magistrate noted the absence of documentary evidence supporting the loan payment, except for the cheque. The accused presented bank statements showing payments made to the complainant.3. The magistrate observed that the accused's payments were made before the date of the cheque, indicating a prior transaction. The complainant failed to explain these earlier transactions, leading to doubts about the loan claim. The magistrate concluded that the complainant did not prove entitlement to recover the loan amount.4. The appellant argued that some payments were made to the complainant's wife, but the complainant did not clarify these transactions. The appellant claimed that the payments made before the loan date were irrelevant, but the court disagreed, considering the unexplained earlier transactions.5. The court upheld the magistrate's decision, stating that the accused's defense was plausible. It emphasized that in appeals against acquittals, interference is limited, especially when the trial court's view is a possible interpretation of the evidence presented. As the magistrate's decision was a valid view of the matter, the appeal was dismissed.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key arguments and conclusions reached by the court regarding the issues involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
