Delhi HC upholds acquittal in Section 138 NI Act case citing insufficient proof of legally recoverable debt

Delhi HC dismissed appeal against acquittal in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 NI Act. Trial court found complainant failed to prove legally recoverable debt despite ledger evidence showing material supply and accused's admission of goods sale. Complainant could not produce bills/invoices or prove account statements. HC held trial court's view was plausible, noting limited scope for interference in acquittal appeals unless findings are impossible or perverse. Since two views were possible, acquittal could not be set aside merely because conviction seemed more probable.

---

---

Issues involved:
The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was dismissed, and the respondent/accused was acquitted. The main issues involved were the dishonor of two cheques, the defense raised by the accused, the evidence presented by both parties, and the admissibility of the ledger account.

Summary:
The appellant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act alleging dishonor of two cheques issued by the respondent for amounts of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2 lacs. The appellant contended that the respondent used to take raw materials on credit. The respondent raised a defense stating that the cheques were not issued by him and that the appellant used to take goods from him, filling in the cheques himself. The Trial Court found that the respondent had probabalized his defense and that the appellant failed to produce bills or invoices. The ledger account produced by the appellant was deemed inadmissible due to lack of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The Trial Court held that the accused had rebutted the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, shifting the onus to the appellant to prove the cheques were issued for a legally recoverable debt. However, the appellant failed to produce bills or invoices, and the ledger account was not properly proved. The Trial Court acquitted the accused based on the lack of evidence to prove the debt or liability. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that the view taken was plausible and interference was not warranted. The appeal was dismissed, finding no merit in challenging the acquittal judgment.

---