Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Acquittal Upheld – Defense proved – Cheque Dishonor – Legal liability – Burden of proof – Defense evidence – Complaint of dishonor of cheque resulted in acquittal – Appeal – The appellant contended that the Trial Court misinterpreted the provisions of the Act and ignored crucial evidence. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed money and issued a post-dated cheque in return, which was dishonored. However, the defense asserted that the cheque was for purchasing electronic articles, and the material was never supplied.
The High Court observed that the presumption of discharge of legal liability by issuing the cheque exists but is rebuttable. It noted that the accused consistently maintained the defense that the cheque was for advance payment of electrical articles, which was supported by the defense witness. The defense evidence was not challenged during cross-examination, leading to its acceptance. The Court emphasized that failure to raise a plea under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not deprive the accused of a valid defense if established otherwise.
The Court cited precedents to highlight the importance of challenging evidence during cross-examination and held that unchallenged testimony stands as established truth. The lack of documentation like bills or contracts did not negate the defense’s claim. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, stating that no interference was warranted. (Para 22, 23, 25-27, 29-33)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2024 STPL(Web) 79 HP
[2024 HHC 709]
Sanjay Sankhyan Vs. Krishan Kumar Katoch
Cr. Appeal No. 196 of 2012-Decided on 26-02-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-STPLWeb-79-HP.pdf
