Appeal Dismissed: High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the acquittal of the respondent. The appellant failed to prove the dishonour of the cheque as required under the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant proved the dishonour of the cheque.
2. Whether the statutory notice was issued within the prescribed period.
3. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant proved the dishonour of the cheque:

The appellant argued that the cheque issued by the respondent was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant presented documents, including the disputed cheque, demand notice, postal acknowledgment, and her statement recorded by the police. However, the memo issued by the bank when the cheque was dishonoured did not bear the official mark or signature of the bank officer, which led to it not being exhibited during evidence. The trial court found that the appellant failed to prove the dishonour of the cheque because the memo did not satisfy the requirements under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which states that a bank's slip or memo with an official mark is prima facie evidence of dishonour. The trial court concluded that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the cheque's dishonour.

2. Whether the statutory notice was issued within the prescribed period:

The trial court held that due to the lack of evidence proving the cheque's dishonour, there was no reference point to ascertain whether the notice for demand of payment was issued within the statutory period of 30 days as required under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant's failure to prove the date of dishonour meant that the statutory period could not be computed, leading the court to conclude that the notice was not proven to be within the prescribed period.

3. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent:

The appellant contended that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent despite finding that the appellant had advanced a hand loan to the respondent, and the cheque was issued towards repayment of this loan. The appellant argued that the trial court should have convicted the respondent based on the evidence provided. However, the respondent's counsel emphasized that the burden of proof was on the appellant to prove the basic facts of deposit and dishonour of the cheque, which was not met. The trial court found that the appellant did not provide cogent evidence to prove the cheque's dishonour, and therefore, the complaint was rightly dismissed.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, stating that the appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court's findings regarding the proof of dishonour of the cheque. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment and order acquitting the respondent were confirmed.

---