TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef facts of the case of the appellant/complainant are that, he has filed a private complaint against the respondent/accused alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, there was transaction between the appellant/complainant and the respondent/accused in respect of supply of greengram and other food grains and accordingly, the appellant/complainant has supplied greengram worth Rs. 3,00,000/-. The respondent/accused herein has issued four cheques in respect of repayment of price of the greengram for Rs. 75,000/- each and one such cheque pertaining to this case when presented was dishonoured. After issuing notice, the proceedings came to be initiated. 3. The trial court after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent view and hence, he would seek for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for convicting the respondent/accused. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would contend that the trial court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and the appellant has failed to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt and hence, she would support the trial court's acquittal judgment. 7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is to be noted herein that the respondent/accused has not disputed that the cheque belongs to his account. Further, he has also admitted his signature on the cheque. He simply set up a defence that P.W.3 who was working as his clerk has obtained si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et aside the conviction order by acquitting the respondent/accused. The said acquittal judgments challenged before this court in Crl.A.Nos.2544, 2545 and 2546 of 2009 and this court by order dated 07.07.2007 allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal. In the said cases, the trial court has convicted the respondent/accused with two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,02,000/-, in default with further imprisonment of six months in each cases. However, this court only to that extent modified the order by setting aside the order of imprisonment and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,02,000/- as ordered by the learned Magistrate. The judgments passed by this court in Crl.A.Nos.2544, 2545 and 2546 of 2009 have reac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of legally enforceable debt. 10. The trial court committed an error apparent on the face of the records by casting burden on the appellant/complainant against the mandatory requirement under Section 139 of N.I.Act. It is further observed that, in earlier cases that the decree is already obtained by the appellant/complainant in respect of payment of the amount. Under these circumstances, the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that there is no legally enforceable debt and committed an error in acquitting the respondent/accused. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous, illegal and capricious and as such, it calls for interference by this court in this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/accus....