2021 (5) TMI 839 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court overturns lower court decision, orders fresh hearing with new evidence

MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LIMITED Versus K. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, THE STATE OF KERALA

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's findings and remanding the case for fresh disposal. The appellant was directed to ... Dishonor of Cheque - absence of reliable evidence - one more opportunity of hearing sought - section 138 of NI Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It seems that it is only in the interest of justice that the appellant be afforded one more opportunity to adduce evidence by producing and marking the cheque return memo in question through a competent witness. It is also noted that both the courts below have noticed the execution and issuance of the cheque by the 1st respondent. In the circumstance, due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the appellant, interest of justice cannot be stultified. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal, after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence, in continuation of the evidence already adduced - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:Appeal challenging judgment of Additional Sessions Judge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Analysis:1. Background and Allegations: The appellant, a leasing and financing company, filed a complaint against the 1st respondent for dishonoring a cheque issued for a loan repayment. The appellant alleged that despite issuing post-dated cheques, the respondent defaulted on repayment, leading to the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Trial Court Decision: The trial court found the respondent guilty under Section 138, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. The court ordered the fine amount to be given to the appellant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. The respondent pleaded not guilty and denied incriminating materials during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.3. Appeal to Sessions Court: The appeal to the Sessions Court challenged the conviction. The Additional Sessions Judge found the execution of the cheque proved but noted insufficient evidence regarding the cheque's dishonor due to lack of funds. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.4. Appeal to High Court: The appellant moved a Criminal Leave Petition to the High Court, which allowed the appeal for further consideration. The High Court heard arguments from both parties, emphasizing the importance of the original cheque dishonour memo dated 10.09.2008.5. High Court Decision: The High Court observed that the cheque return memo, crucial for establishing dishonor due to insufficient funds, was not presented during the appeal. The court acknowledged the oversight and deemed it necessary in the interest of justice to afford the appellant an opportunity to produce the memo and adduce further evidence.6. Remand Order: Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court's findings, remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. The appellant was directed to produce the cheque return memo through a competent witness. The trial court was instructed to allow both parties to adduce fresh evidence, continuing from the evidence already presented.7. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the trial records, along with the cheque return memo, were to be transmitted to the trial court for further proceedings. The 1st respondent was to be given notice for the fresh evidence hearing, ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.This detailed analysis highlights the legal journey from the trial court's conviction to the High Court's remand order, emphasizing the importance of evidence and procedural fairness in adjudicating matters under the Negotiable Instruments Act.