Ramdass vs Krishnanand
Criminal Appeal No.1522/2014
Facts of the case are that the cheque of Rs.5 lakh issued by
the appellant Ramdass in favour of respondent was dishonored as the appellant
instructed the bank to stop the payment. The respondent filed criminal case
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant. The
complainant/respondent set up the case that he had given hand loan of Rs.1.75
lakh to the appellant and that to discharge said liability, the appellant had
issued the cheque of Rs.5 lakh. The case
of the appellant, on the other hand, was that he had entered into an agreement
with the complainant to purchase 3 acres of land belonging to the complainant
for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and for that purpose, an advance of
Rs.30,000/- in cash was paid and the Cheque in question for Rs.5,00,000/- was handed
over to the complainant in presence of B.S. Pai (DW 2) and that when the
complainant failed to execute the sale agreement and not even willing to return
the advance amount of Rs.30,000/- and the Cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-, he had to
instruct the Bank to stop payment against the said Cheque.
The Magistrate Court took note of the financial condition of
the complainant and found his version to be false on the evidence led before
him and dismissed the complaint and acquitted the appellant of the offence.
The complainant filed appeal in the High Court. The High
Court while allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and
sentenced the appellant-accused to pay a fine of Rs.8,50,000/- within a period
of eight weeks, failing which, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Aggrieved by the reversal of his acquittal, the
appellant appealed to Supreme Court of India. The appellant deposited
Rs.1,75,000/- in the trial court in accordance with the Supreme court’s order
initially. However, vide final judgment dated 23rd July 2014, the
Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of High court and restored the
judgment of trial court acquitting the appellant. The Court observed that it can
not be believed that the complainant had raised loan of Rs.1,75,000/- only to
give hand loan to his employer/appellant. The court observed that it is not
trustworthy that complainant was in a position to extend hand loan of such a
big amount to the appellant particularly when the complainant himself admitted
that his net savings in a year came to Rs.10,000/- per year and he was working
as lorry driver with appellant who used to deal in sale purchase of properties.
The supreme court permitted appellant to withdraw Rs.1,75,000/- which were
earlier deposited by the appellant in the trial court in pursuance to Supreme
Court’s initial order.
Read the full Judgment.
Read the full Judgment.
Sunil Goel advocate B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm
