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>Appellate Court Upholds Acquittal in Section 138 Case</h1> <h3>RAPHY. C.L Versus REJI THOMAS AND ANOTHER</h3> RAPHY. C.L Versus REJI THOMAS AND ANOTHER - TMI Issues:Challenge against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Analysis:1. The appellant, as the complainant, challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque in discharge of a debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of proof of cheque execution.2. The complainant presented evidence through PW1 and exhibits P1 to P6. The accused, as DW1, claimed he provided a blank cheque as security for a kuri subscription with 'Crown Kuries,' alleging misuse by the complainant. The trial court found the complainant's evidence insufficient to prove the debt or cheque execution.3. The trial court highlighted the absence of debt details in the complaint, inconsistencies in PW1's testimony regarding cheque execution, and the lack of an independent witness to corroborate the transaction. The court found valid reasons to doubt the complainant's evidence.4. The appellant contended that the accused's plea was probable, supported by his testimony and the absence of documents proving kuri subscription. The appellant argued that the accused's failure to reply to the statutory notice favored the complainant, but the court emphasized that such failure alone does not prove the complainant's case.5. The court noted that the burden to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act lies with the accused, requiring a reasonable probability in his version. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court emphasized the need for material evidence to support loan transactions, which was lacking in this case.6. The court reiterated the principle that interference with an acquittal should only occur under compelling circumstances. Considering the evidence and circumstances, the court upheld the trial court's verdict of acquittal, dismissing the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
