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 Affirms Acquittal Decision in Insufficient Evidence Case</h1> <h3>Narendra Kumar Sharma Versus Sandeep Shrivastava</h3> The Court upheld the trial Court's decision, dismissing the CRMP seeking special leave to appeal against the respondent's acquittal from charges under ... Dishonor of Cheque - failure to prove the debt - Acquittal of respondent from the charges framed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - HELD THAT:- The trial Court has rightly arrived to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the debt of the complaint. This Court also confirm the said conclusion drawn by the trial Court that the transactions between the complainant and the accused are not clear and the complainant has also failed to produce the evidence about source of money. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is not perverse, illegal and improper and the same does not call for any interference - Petition dismissed. Issues:Grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a CRMP seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the JMFC in a case involving the respondent's acquittal from charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.2. The case involved the respondent taking a loan from the complainant for business purposes, with a cheque issued for repayment getting dishonored. Despite legal notices and claims of loan repayment, the respondent denied payment, leading to the filing of the complaint.3. The petitioner argued that the trial Court erred in not appreciating the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, necessitating interference with the acquittal order.4. The Court noted discrepancies in the complainant's statements regarding the loan amount and dates, weakening the case. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized the accused's right to raise a probable defense to challenge the existence of a debt, shifting the burden of proof to the complainant.5. Relying on case law, the Court highlighted that the accused need not prove the non-existence of consideration and debt beyond a reasonable doubt, but must present compelling evidence to shift the burden of proof. In this case, the Court found the complainant's evidence lacking in establishing the transactions clearly.6. Ultimately, the Court upheld the trial Court's decision, stating that the complainant failed to prove the debt conclusively, and the transactions between the parties lacked clarity. The judgment of acquittal was deemed lawful, non-perverse, and not necessitating interference, leading to the dismissal of the CRMP.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
