Bharat Bhushan Vs Umesh Kumar (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when the financial capacity of the complainant is not established, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, order of Trial Court upheld and appeal of complainant dismissed.
Facts- The complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was asserted that the accused had issued a cheque dated 20.04.2018 for ₹10,00,000/-, to discharge his legal and enforceable debt in the complainant’s favour. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank; however, it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused asking him to pay the cheque amount. This notice was duly served upon the accused; however, the accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice. Hence, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused as per the law.
Trial Court held that the complainant failed to specify the legal liability. He could not mention when the money was advanced and the date of advancing the money in his cross-examination. The complainant failed to specify the reason for advancing the loan. The complainant did not have the financial capacity to pay the amount. His statement of account shows the withdrawal of ₹4,00,000/- and not ₹10,00,000/-. These circumstances made the complainant’s case highly suspect. Hence, the accused was acquitted. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
