High Court sets aside Trial Court acquittal, convicts accused under Section 138, orders payment to complainant.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Trial Court's acquittal of the accused. The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks, with failure resulting in one year of simple imprisonment. The Trial Court was instructed to secure the accused for sentencing, and the Registry was directed to transmit the Trial Court records promptly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Trial Judge erred in acquitting the accused by concluding that the transaction between the accused and the complainant was doubtful.
2. What order should be passed regarding the appealRs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Error in Acquitting the Accused
The appellant challenged the acquittal judgment on the grounds that the Trial Judge did not properly appreciate the material evidence, particularly the admission by the accused (D.W.1) regarding the loan transaction. The complainant (P.W.1) had provided oral and documentary evidence, including a cheque for Rs. 59,000/- which was dishonored, leading to the complaint. The Trial Court had focused on discrepancies in the financial records (Ex.P.9) and concluded that the transaction was doubtful. However, the appellant argued that the Trial Judge overlooked significant admissions by the accused, including the issuance of the cheque and partial repayment of Rs. 5,000/- during the proceedings.

Analysis of Evidence:
1. Complainant's Evidence: The complainant testified about the loan transaction dated 01.12.2000 and subsequent dishonor of the cheque. He provided evidence of notices sent to the accused and the accused's failure to respond.
2. Accused's Admission: During cross-examination, the accused admitted to availing a loan on 01.12.2000 and making a partial payment of Rs. 5,000/- on 12.08.2004. Despite these admissions, the Trial Court doubted the transaction based on discrepancies in the financial records.
3. Legal Presumption: The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, which held that non-reply to a notice and undisputed signature on a cheque should lead to a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion on Issue 1:
The High Court found that the Trial Judge failed to consider the accused's admissions and the legal presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The Trial Judge's focus on discrepancies in Ex.P.9 was misplaced, given the clear admissions by the accused regarding the loan and partial repayment. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Trial Judge committed an error in acquitting the accused.

Issue 2: Order
The High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment and convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks. Failure to do so would result in a simple imprisonment of one year. The Trial Court was instructed to secure the accused for sentencing, and the Registry was directed to transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.

Final Order:
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.01.2011 in C.C.No.56/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, is set aside.
3. The accused is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. The accused is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks. Failure to pay will result in simple imprisonment for one year.
5. The Trial Court is directed to secure the accused for sentencing.
6. The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.

---