In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a defendant in a longstanding cheque dishonor case. The crux of the matter lay in the failure of the complainant to establish a legally enforceable debt against the accused.
The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, scrutinized the evidence presented. They found the petitioner’s argument lacking in substance, as no evidence demonstrated the existence of a financial obligation owed by the accused. Notably, the debt purportedly discharged by the cheques did not reflect in the petitioner’s balance sheet.
The dispute stemmed from the initiation of cheque dishonor proceedings against the accused. The complainant contended that the cheques were issued to settle a legally enforceable debt. However, the accused refuted this claim, asserting that the funds transferred to her account were intended for stock market trading on behalf of the complainant.
Despite the trial court’s initial conviction, the appellate courts reversed the decision, culminating in the High Court’s affirmation of the acquittal.
The complainant, undeterred, sought recourse in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, the apex court maintained that its intervention was unwarranted unless the lower courts’ findings were patently flawed or unsupported by evidence.
Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the lower courts had diligently examined the evidence and found no basis for interference. The absence of a legally enforceable debt and the lack of perversity in the lower courts’ decisions rendered the petitioner’s appeal untenable.
Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was summarily dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused.
The legal battle, encapsulating M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises versus Kavita Saraff & Anr., underscores the importance of substantiating claims of indebtedness in cheque dishonor cases.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab
