Court affirms acquittal under Sec 138 N.I. Act, dismisses appeal, directs honorarium.

The court affirmed the trial court's acquittal of the accused under section 138 of the N.I. Act, as the appellant failed to establish the monetary transaction and discharge the burden to raise the presumption. The court found no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal, dismissing the appeal and confirming the impugned judgment. An honorarium was directed to be paid, acknowledging the amicus curiae's service.

---

---

Issues:
1. Acquittal of the accused under section 138 of N.I. Act
2. Grounds for interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant/complainant alleged that the respondent/accused borrowed Rs. 4 lakhs promising to repay within six months, issuing a cheque that later bounced due to insufficient funds. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in not raising the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act. The appellant contended that the respondent's denial of the transaction was insufficient to rebut the presumption, seeking to allow the appeal. However, the respondent claimed the cheque was issued as collateral security to the appellant's deceased mother-in-law, and he was not liable to repay the amount. The respondent denied any transaction with the appellant, attributing misuse of the cheque to the appellant after the mother-in-law's death.

Issue 2:
The court considered the evidence presented by both parties. The appellant testified that he borrowed money from his co-brother to lend to the respondent, while the respondent claimed to have received money from the appellant's mother-in-law. The financial capacity of the appellant to lend the amount raised doubts, as the evidence showed discrepancies in the timing of transactions. The court highlighted the components of the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and the presumption under section 139. The respondent's testimony regarding the cheque as collateral security and the lack of effort to prove the respondent's signature on the cheque influenced the court's decision.

In conclusion, the court affirmed the trial court's acquittal of the accused under section 138 of the N.I. Act, stating that the appellant failed to establish the monetary transaction and discharge the burden to raise the presumption. The court found no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was confirmed, with appreciation for the amicus curiae's service and an honorarium directed to be paid.

---