Back
FARJAND ALI
Jagdish Chandra Balai – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the leave-petitioner Jagdish Chandra Balai S/o Sh. Heera Lal Balai against the judgment dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.969/2016 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said judgment of acquittal is under assail before this Court.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case as per the petitioner are that on 16.07.2012, the leave-petitioner has filed a complaint before the trial Court alleging inter alia that he lend some money to the accused-respondent to meet out his household needs, in lieu thereof, the respondent gave a cheque No.361396 dated 24.05.2012 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhilwara, which upon presentation before the Bank concerned got dishonored with a remark that 'Account is dormant'. Thereafter, a registered legal notice was served upon the accused-respondent but no heed was paid by him. Thus, the said complaint under Section 138 NI Act has been filed before the learned Court of Special Judicial Magist
Material alterations in a negotiable instrument void the instrument unless consented to by all parties involved.
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding that the cheque was invalid due to material alteration, thus failing to establish charges under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The need for evidence to rebut the presumption under the NI Act and the inadmissibility of appreciating evidence at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Material alterations to a negotiable instrument render it void unless consented by the parties; a court should not overturn an acquittal unless findings are unreasonable or perverse.
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be applied in favor of the holder in due course unless effectively rebutted by the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be drawn in favor of the holder unless rebutted, and misinterpretation of evidence by the Trial Court can lead to a successful....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
