Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Cheque Dispute Case

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by Ramdas S/O Khelu Naik and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court restored the acquittal order originally passed by the Trial Court. This means that Ramdas is no longer held responsible for the charges brought against him in a case involving a bounced cheque.

What Was the Case About?

The case involved a dispute over a cheque issued by Ramdas. The complainant, Krishnanand S/O Vishnu Naik, claimed that the cheque was issued to repay a hand loan of Rs. 1,75,000. However, Ramdas argued that the cheque was issued as part payment for the purchase of land and that Krishnanand had failed to execute the sale agreement or return the advance payment and the cheque.

What Did the Appellant Argue?

Ramdas raised the following points:

1. The cheque was issued as part payment for the purchase of land.
2. The complainant failed to execute the sale agreement or return the advance payment and the cheque.
3. The Trial Court had correctly dismissed the complaint.

Ramdas requested the Supreme Court to set aside the High Court’s judgment and restore the Trial Court’s acquittal order.

What Did the Respondent Argue?

The respondent, Krishnanand, argued that:

1. The cheque was issued to repay a hand loan of Rs. 1,75,000.
2. Ramdas had instructed the bank to stop payment on the cheque to avoid repaying the loan.
3. The High Court had correctly allowed the appeal and sentenced Ramdas.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court made the following conclusions:

1. There was no evidence to support the complainant’s claim of a hand loan.
2. The evidence provided by defense witnesses supported Ramdas’s version of a land purchase agreement.
3. The complainant had not rebutted the defense evidence.
4. The High Court’s judgment was not justified and should be set aside.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ramdas, restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal order. This means that Ramdas is no longer held liable for the charges.

Key Takeaway

This case highlights the importance of providing solid evidence in legal disputes. The Supreme Court emphasized that the complainant’s claim of a hand loan was not supported by evidence, while the defense provided credible evidence supporting Ramdas’s version of events. It also shows that courts will carefully examine the evidence and ensure that justice is served based on the facts presented.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. The information provided here is intended to offer general knowledge about legal matters but does not constitute legal advice. Due to the complexity of legal processes, it is highly recommended to seek professional assistance from legal experts for specific cases.