TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (11) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Instruments Act (the Act), and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 37,500 and in default to undergo RI for a period of 3 months. The High Court had further directed that out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 34,500 should be paid to the respondent herein by way of compensation. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the respondent herein on 1-11-1990 had advanced a cash sum of Rs. 26,500 for expansion of the appellant's hospital and towards the repayment of the said amount, the appellant had issued a cheque for the said sum which when presented to the bank, was dishonoured with an endorsement "Payment stopped by the drawer". The respondent after issuing the required statutory notice, filed a complaint against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., according to the trial court, showed that the case of the appellant that he had given a blank cheque signed was more probable. The trial court also took into consideration the fact that though the respondent had filed a civil suit for the recovery of the amount allegedly paid to the appellant under the cheque in question did not pursue the same, hence, from this fact also the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant's version that the cheque in question was given in a blank condition to Chandrappa Panicker and the said Panicker being very close to the respondent had colluded with the respondent to make a false complaint against the appellant. The trial court also took note of the fact that the said Chandrappa Panicker was see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt had lost sight of the fact that it was sitting as an appellate court against a judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, therefore, there was an obligation on the part of the High Court to come to a definite conclusion that the findings of the trial court are either perverse or the same are contrary to material on record because the High Court could not have substituted its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible based on material on record. It was the duty of the High Court to have first come to the conclusion that the conclusions arrived at by the trial court for good reasons are either unreasonable or as stated above, contrary to the material on record. In the absence of any such finding in our opinion, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... because it is the case of the respondent that he came to know the appellant through said Vijay Kumar and the amount in question was paid in the office of said Vijay Kumar. In such a situation, the trial court came to the conclusion that when the appellant has set up a possible defence of having given a blank cheque to Chandrappa Panicker in regard to a chit transaction, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent complainant to have examined the said Vijay Kumar to establish the fact that Vijay Kumar indeed, persuaded the respondent to advance the cash. We also think this was a very necessary piece of evidence to establish the fact that the respondent had in fact advanced a sum of Rs. 26,500 to the appellant. From a perusal of the judgm....