Trial Court Rightly Acquitted Accused in Section 138 Case as Complainant Failed to Prove Debt After Defense Was Raised

Case Details: Atul Pundhir v. Delhi Group - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 4 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Amit Mahajan, J.
• Akshit Sawal, Adv. for the Applicant.
• Ajay Chaudhary, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, a complaint was filed against accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by complainant on the ground that accused had taken friendly loan of Rs.48 lakh from complainant and a cheque issued by accused in favour of complainant was dishonoured on presentation.

High Court Held

Later, the Trial Court by impugned order acquitted accused of offence under Section 138. Complainant filed instant appeal against order of acquittal. Accused, however, raised a defence that he was not signatory to cheques in question.

In order to bolster his claim, an application was moved by accused seeking expert opinion for verification of signature of accused and comparison with those appearing on impugned cheques.

Said application was allowed, and cheques were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for comparison with the admitted signature of the accused on the account opening form, vakalatnama, and bail bond.

Further, it was noted that the CFSL report substantiated the contention of accused that he was not signatory to impugned cheques. Accused already having dislodged his burden, it was on the complainant to show the existence of the debt, that too, as a matter of fact.

However, the complainant had failed to prove that there existed any debt/liability on date, or show the mode and manner of advancement of loan, or lead any evidence/documentary proof to establish how the sum of Rs. 48 lakh was advanced.

Since, the complainant having failed to lead evidence to show the existence of debt/liability, the High Court held that there was no perversity in impugned judgment so as to merit interference in the finding of acquittal, and consequently, there was no reason to entertain instant petition, and accordingly, an instant appeal against impugned order was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Rajaram s/o Sriramlulu Naidu (since deceased) through LRs: Criminal Appeal No. 1978 of 2013 (para 17)
• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 (para 18)
• Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 (para 19)
• Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148 (para 20).