AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The learned trial judge has acquitted the respondent (accused) of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is before this court. I have heard Sri. H. Malthesh, learned counsel for Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned counsel for complainant.
It is the case of complainant that accused and complainant had invested certain amount of money to grow ginger by taking certain lands on lease. In that connection, there were differences between them and a panchayat was held on 14.08.2005. These facts have been admitted by the accused. The accused has admitted that, in the panchayat it was resolved that he shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant. The accused has contended that determination of liability by the panchayatdars was not based on proper reasons. In order to obey the panchayatdars, he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and another cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant. The accused has contended that he has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by depositing the same into the account of complainant on 30.08.2005. Thereafter, the cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- issued by the accused to the complainant was returned to him by the complainant.
The accused has contended that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- into the account of complainant on 10.03.2006 and requested the complainant to return the cheque. At the relevant point of time, complainant was undergoing treatment at Bangalore. Therefore, complainant informed the accused that cheque was misplaced and he would return the cheque. The complainant has misused the aforestated cheque to initiate the present complaint. The complainant has taken a stand that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited by accused to his account on 10.03.2006 was towards price of coffee purchased by the accused. The complainant has reiterated that liability to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- still subsisted.
On perusal of evidence adduced by both parties, the learned trial judge has held that complainant has failed to prove that subsequent to aforestated transactions and panchayat, complainant had sold coffee to the accused and accused has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards payment of price of coffee.
After going through oral and documentary evidence, I find that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he had sold coffee to the accused after the transaction between parties in relation to ginger cultivation was resolved in panchayat dated 14.08.2005.
The learned counsel for complainant would submit that, the complainant was the holder of cheque in due course and presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is available in favour of the complainant.
The averments of complaint, evidence adduced by complainant and documents relied upon by accused would clearly belie the existence of legally recoverable debt after the amount was deposited by accused on 10.03.2006. In the circumstances, presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not available to the complainant. The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.