“Legal Review and Disapproval of Petitions Based on Evidence.”- SC


Case No: CRIMINAL NO.5583 OF 2022

Decided on: 9th April,2024


Facts of the case:

Four distinct complaint suits were filed by the petitioner at the Kolkata Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court. In order to absolve herself of her responsibility to the petitioner, the petitioner contended before the trial court that it had given financial support and that it had written the aforementioned checks. The petitioner/complainant served the accused with a valid statutory demand notice on May 20, 2009, after it was sent to them on May 4, 2009. She may do things connected to the stock market with her account. She was a defense witness who testified. During her major cross-examination, she stated particularly that the complainant wanted to trade in the stock market’s futures and options segment, but he decided to use her account for speculation since he didn’t want his family to know. It had disregarded to deliver any supporting documentation for a loan transaction. According to the First Appellate Court, there was no proof of a loan transaction. The High Court likewise dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against the decision of acquittal.

Petitioner’s Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner/complainant and convinced us that all the requirements of Section 138 of the 1881 Act were met. The accused’s signature and the fact that respondent received the money in her bank account were both uncontested. He argued that the burden of proof shifted to the respondent/accused in such a case, and that the complainant was not required to prove its debt in the same way that it would in a civil suit once the aforementioned factors were established. He further pointed out that during the accused/respondent No. 1’s cross-examination, it was revealed that she had cashed multiple checks that belonged to the sub-series of the checkbook that the CBI had seized. He has further argued that in a case involving the dishonor of checks under the 1881 Act, the books of accounts need not be produced in the precise sense after the primary elements of the offense are determined. Of checks under the 1881 Act, the precise production of the books of accounts is not required once the main components of the violation have been established.

 Respondent’s Contentions

Defended the decisions made by the First Appellate Court and the High Court on behalf of the accused/respondent. Because he did not present any proof that the aforementioned checks were written as payment for a legally enforceable debt, it was argued that the complainant/petitioner did not meet the requirement of being “a holder in due course” and could not have been a person who had, for due consideration, become the possessor of the checks. Citing the depositions made before the Trial Court, he provided evidence to support his claim that the presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the 1881 Act was not relevant in the complainant/petitioner’s case. He added that in order to use the jurisdictional facts, the petitioner/complainant had to prove them. The presumption under the two aforementioned 1881 Act provisions, and that any weakness in the complainant’s proof would compromise the complaint’s original foundation.

Court Analysis and Judgement

Senior counsel’s reliance on their individual determinations, as the decision being reviewed is primarily based on the material provided by the relevant parties. The concepts that emerged from these sources have influenced the verdict given by the High Court. In this decision, the legal perspectives mentioned in these sources have also been taken into consideration. It is believed that neither the High Court’s ruling nor the First Appellate Court’s earlier ruling, which favored the petitioner/complainant, was unreasonable. It is asserted that these conclusions were supported by evidence and were not incorrect. The intervention is deemed necessary because there are no legal issues present in any of the situations within this group. Consequently, these petitions are disapproved.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement