TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal called for interference on the ground that the trial court's view was perverse or contrary to the evidence; (ii) Whether the cheque was presented within its validity period so as to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Issue (i): Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal called for interference on the ground that the trial court's view was perverse or contrary to the evidence.
Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the trial court's conclusion is not a possible view, or where the findings are perverse, patently illegal, or based on a misreading of evidence. The trial court had critically examined the complainant's evidence, the accused's rebuttal of the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the material on record, and had given cogent reasons for the acquittal. The recorded view was supported by the evidence and did not disclose perversity or illegality.
Conclusion: Interference with the acquittal was not justified and leave to appeal was rightly refused.
Issue (ii): Whether the cheque was presented within its validity period so as to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The cheque was dated 11.02.2015 and was valid for three months. The complainant's own version showed presentation after 15.05.2015, which supported the trial court's finding that the cheque had been presented beyond its validity period. On that basis, the statutory requirement for an offence under Section 138 was not satisfied, and the trial court's reliance on the evidence and governing legal position was justified.
Conclusion: The cheque was not presented within validity and no offence under Section 138 was made out.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was sustained because the trial court's assessment of the evidence was a permissible one and the cheque dishonour prosecution failed on the issue of validity of presentation.
Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an acquittal is impermissible where the trial court's view is a possible view supported by evidence, and an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not arise if the cheque is presented beyond its validity period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
