V. RADAKRISHNA Vs. HARI CHARANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for appellant. The respondent is served and remains absent.

(2.) THE appellant was the complainant before the Court below alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act', for brevity).

(3.) THE trial Court has answered the same in the negative. Primarily, the Court below has proceeded on the footing that one of the defences raised was that there was no legally recoverable debt or any transaction between the appellant and the respondent and it was alleged that the cheques in question were stolen by one of the partners of the respondent, who had fallen out with him and the said stolen cheques were handed over to the appellant, who has mis -used the same in presenting the same, as if the cheques had been issued in discharge of any legally recoverable debt and further the appellant was not possessed of the means to lend such huge amounts. The Court below had also negated the contention of the appellant to the effect that the appellant had received compensation inrespect of acquisition of his land and this money was kept at hand by the appellant to conduct the marriage of his children and it is that amount which had been lent to the respondent. The Court below has held that no documents were produced in support of the said claim and further that the appellant had not chosen to cross -examine the respondent, who had examined himself as D.W.1 to urge the above defences, and therefore, the defence set up by the respondent was not rebutted and hence the appellant had failed to establish that there was a legally recoverable debt in respect of the cheques in question, which had been issued. It is that which is under challenge.