Appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act. Court dismissed appeal holding that complainant failed to prove legal liability for cheque issuance beyond reasonable doubt.
Acquittal of respondent upheld; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 149 of 2015
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant For Respondent
Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Judgment On Board
5/1/2024
2
an agreement to purchase the said land for a consideration amount of Rs.25 Lakhs and for the same, he executed a registered sale-deed on 10.9.2010-Ex.D/1. Though the accused promised to pay the consideration amount after one month of the Registry, however, after one month, when the accused did not pay the consideration amount, the complainant demanded the money. Then, the accused issued a cheque vide Ex.P/1 for Rs.2 Lakhs on 12.7.2011. When the said cheque was presented before the Bank for realization, the same got dishonoured on account of ‘insufficient funds’. The Bank gave intimation in this regard vide Ex.P/2 and hence, a legal notice vide Ex.P/3 was sent to the accused. Inspite of such notice, when the payment was not made , the said complaint was filed.
3
respondent/accused as in the Sale-Deed-Ex.D/1, it has been admitted that the entire consideration amount has been paid. Against such documentary evidence, no other document has been proved by the complainant to show that any other agreement has been entered into between the parties and on account of such liability, the said cheque was given. He further submits that though the sale-deed has been executed in the name of Santosh but the cheque was issued in favour of Manharan and it has not been established that Santosh and Manharan are the same person.
4
executed by Santosh. In the registered sale-deed Ex.D/1, it has been mentioned that the entire consideration has been received by the seller Santosh and no amount remains to be paid.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Shyna
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the purpose and liability for which the cheque was issued are established beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the dishonoured cheque was issued for a legal liability as admitted in the sale-deed.
Whether the acquittal of the appellant requires interference by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jafarudheen Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶29
Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manharan Lal @ Santosh S/o Late Shri Suritram
Smt. Pinki Singh W/o Pankaj Singh
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
