Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Mere Possession of Cheques Does Not Create Liability: Karnataka High Court Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Rachaiah emphasizes need for substantial proof of transaction, overturns conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In a notable decision, the Karnataka High Court acquitted M.R. Narasimha Murthy, who had been previously convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Justice S. Rachaiah set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, citing insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's claims regarding the sale of tyres.

Facts of the Case:

The case originated from a business transaction between M/S Sam Tourist, represented by Narasimha Murthy, and M/S Elgi Rubber Company Limited. Murthy was accused of issuing cheques worth Rs. 4,49,000 to Elgi Rubber for the purchase of tyres. These cheques were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to a legal notice and eventually a complaint filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted Murthy, a decision upheld by the appellate court. Murthy then filed a criminal revision petition challenging these judgments.

Court Observations and Views:

Evidence and Documentation:

Justice Rachaiah observed significant gaps in the evidence presented by the complainant. Although the complainant alleged that tyres worth Rs. 4,49,000 were supplied and cheques were issued as payment, there were no invoices or relevant documents produced to substantiate this claim. "The absence of material documents to prove the transaction raises serious doubts about the complainant's case," the court noted.

Presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act:

The court acknowledged the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which protects the complainant once the issuance of cheques is admitted. However, Justice Rachaiah emphasized that this presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the accused argued that the cheques were issued as security for other transactions, not as payment for a specific debt. The court found this defense credible, especially given the lack of documentary evidence from the complainant.

Cross-Examination and Admissions:

During cross-examination, the complainant admitted to not having any invoices or documentation to prove the sale of tyres. Furthermore, the complainant's statements regarding the payment of taxes like KST and CST for the alleged sale were not supported by evidence. "The admissions made by the complainant during cross-examination significantly weaken the prosecution's case," Justice Rachaiah stated.

Legal Reasoning:

Justice Rachaiah highlighted the necessity of cogent evidence to support claims in cheque bounce cases. "Mere possession of cheques does not create a liability. The complainant must provide substantial proof of the transaction that led to the issuance of the cheques," the court remarked. The judgment underscored that in the absence of such proof, the presumption of liability stands rebutted.

Quotes from the Judgment:

Justice Rachaiah pointedly noted, "The concurrent findings of the lower courts are erroneous due to the lack of appreciation of evidence and misapplication of the law under the Negotiable Instruments Act."

Conclusion:

The Karnataka High Court's decision to acquit Narasimha Murthy underscores the critical importance of thorough and credible documentation in cases involving financial transactions and the issuance of cheques. This judgment sets a precedent emphasizing that the burden of proof cannot be shifted solely based on presumptions without substantial evidence. The ruling is likely to impact how future cheque bounce cases are argued and adjudicated, reinforcing the necessity for complainants to substantiate their claims with concrete evidence.

 

Date of Decision: May 7, 2024

M.R. Narasimha Murthy vs. M/S Elgi Rubber Company Limited

Similar News