TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;Act'). The relevant facts of the present appeal are that the respondent on 30th June, 2006 took a friendly loan of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the appellant with a promise to repay the same within two months. Respondent issued a cheque towards discharge of the said loan which was dishonoured on the ground of 'insufficient funds' on 30th August, 2006. Hence the present complaint was filed. 2. The respondent's contention before the trial court was that he was informed about the dishonour of cheque on 30th August, 2006. Immediately thereafter he made part payments to the complainant, i.e., Rs. 75,000/- on 04th September, 2006 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 11th September, 2006 towards the said amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- . Both these payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The contention of counsel for complainant that Rs. 1,75,000 was against the payment of some other transaction appears to be a mere bald averment. It is for reason that the voluntary deposition of complainant during his cross examination that the payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- was against the payment of some other transaction came out only after all the questions of defence counsel on that aspect were already over. The prudence required him to volunteer the aspect of "some other transaction" as soon as the first question of part payment of Rs. 75,000/- was asked to him. It appears that the voluntary deposition was merely to cover up the adverse impact of his earlier admissions to the questions of payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- by accused to him. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the complainant had already received an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- from complainant, the legal demand notice demanding an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- i.e. cheque amount was illegal and invalid. Thus, in the absence of "demand of amount actually payable to recoverable", the legal demand notice issued by complainant to accused becomes illegal, invalid and bad in the eyes of law. In view of the settled proposition of law that the offence u/s 138 of the Act stands completed and committed only on service of a valid legal demand notice, the offence in the present complaint cannot be deemed who have been completed/committed. Therefore, the factual matrix of the present matter duly falls in sync with the observations of the Hon'ble High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he trial Court and the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible view, the Appellate Court should not interfere and substitute its own view against the plausible view taken by the trial Court. In fact, the Supreme Court in Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 while referring to previous cases laid down the following general principles regarding the powers of appellate court while dealing an appeal against an order of acquittal:- 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 6. The Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor & Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 has held as under:- 40. Unquestionably, the Appellate Court has power to review and re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. The appellate court would be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal only if there are substantial and compelling reasons and when the judgment of the trial court is found to be perverse judgment. Interfering in a routine manner where other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position crystallized by aforementioned judgments of this Court. The accused is presumed to ....