RAMDAS S/O KHELUNAIK versus KRISHNANAND S/O VISHNU NAIK.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 23-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 941 
RAMDAS S/O KHELUNAIK 
v. 
KRISHNANAND S/O VISHNU NAIK. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1522 of 2014) 
JULY 23, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Dishonour 
A 
B 
of cheque - On the ground of stop payment instruction by 
drawer of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed by trial court. C 
acquitting the accused-drawer of cheque - High Court 
convicted the accused - On appeal, held: The complainant 
failed to prove his case that the cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs was 
against hand-loan of Rs. 1 lakh seventy five thousand - While 
the accused proved that the cheque was drawn in relation to 
D 
·sale agreement with the complainant and the payment thereof 
was instructed to be stopped on failure of execution of sale 
agreement - Accused acquitted. 
A cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs issued by the appellant-
E 
accused, in favour of the respondent was dishonoured 
F 
by the Bank on the ground of 'Stop payment' instruction 
issued by the appellant. Thereupon, the respondent filed 
complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The 
case of the complainant-respondent was that he had 
given a hand-loan of Rs. 1 lakh 75 thousand to the 
appellant, the appellant had drawn the cheques for Rs. 5 
lakhs to discharge that liability. The case of the appellant 
was that he had entered into agreement with the 
complainant with regard to purchase of land for a total 
consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs and for that purpose a cash 
G 
of Rs. 30,000/- and the cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs was handed 
over; and that he instructed the Bank to stop the 
payment, when the complainant failed to execute the sale 
941 
H 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A agreement. Trial court dismissed the complaint and 
acquitted the appellant. In appeal, High Court found the 
appellant guilty and imposed sentence of fine of Rs. 
8,50,000/- with default clause. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Cheque in question was for 
Rs.5,00,000/- and all the way the stand of the complainant 
was that he had given a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/- to the 
accused-appellant. There is no material on record in 
C support of the claim of the complainant giving hand loan 
to the accused-appellant. There was also no calculation 
of account or stipulation of any interest on the alleged 
loan amount to show as to how the amount of 
Rs.5,00,000/- was figured, in return of a hand loan of 
D Rs.1, 75,000/-, if at all taken by the appellant from the 
complainant. It is also not on record whether there was 
sufficient balance amount or not in the bank account of 
the accused when the Cheque was dishonoured by the 
Bank. In the absence of any authenticated and 
E supporting evidence, the Court cannot believe that the 
complainant-respondent who is employed under the 
appellant-accused, has raised an amount of Rs.1,75,000/ 
• that too by obtaining loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from a Bank, 
only to give hand loan to his employer. As the 
F complainant himself admitted that his net savings in a 
year comes to about Rs. 10,000/-, it is not trustworthy that 
he was in a position to extend hand loan of such big 
amount to the appellant. [Para 9) [946-G-H; 947-A-D] 
2. On the other hand, the evidence of D.W. 2 fully 
G corroborates the version of the appellant. He deposed 
that the talks of sale/purchase of 3 acres of land were 
held between the parties in his presence. The 
complainant has not rebutted the evidence of D.W. 2 in 
the cross examination. Further, the firm and unshaken 
H 
RAMDAS S/O KHELUNAIK v. KRISHNANAND S/O 
943 
VISHNU NAIK 
evidence of OW6, a member of the Bar Association (O.W. 
A 
6) also corroborated the sale purchase deal between the 
parties. It is evident from the record that (OW 6) has 
clearly and categorically deposed that the appella.nt 
stated to him about four years back that he had entered 
into an agreement with the complainant in presence of 
B 
OW 2 to purchase 3 acres of land belonging to the 
complainant and also paid Rs.30,000/- in cash as advance 
money and issued a Cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-. Looking 
at the corroborative evidence adduced by the defence 
witnesses and more particularly, in the absence of any c 
material evidence in support of the claim of the 
respondent-complainant, the impugned judgment cannot 
be upheld. [Para 10] (947-E-H; 948-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CRIMINAL 
APPEAL NO. 1522 of 2014. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2012 in CRL

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.