2015 (6) TMI 1076 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of acquittal - discharge the onus to get the benefit of the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act - Held that - Evidently, the first respondent/accused has denied the execution of a cheque for discharging any legally enforceable debt in favour of the appellant. During the cross examination PW1 deposed that Ext.P1 was produced before him after writing and putting signature, thereon. At the same time, he would state that he was not familiar with the signature of the accused. It was taking into account such circumstances that the trial court arrived at the conclusion that PW1 had not witnessed the execution of Ext.P1 by the accused. As noticed hereinbefore, despite the specific case that the accused used to purchase goods from the complainant on credit basis and possession of documents revealing such transaction the complainant had not produced any such documents, is the specific finding of the trial court. The appellant did not have a case that he had produced any such documents. It was considering all such relevant aspects that the trial court found that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus to get the benefit of the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case warranting any interference with the order of acquittal. The presumption even otherwise available in a criminal trial was reinforced in this case by the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VII, Ernakulam. In such circumstances, a re-appreciation of the evidence is possible only if the appellant makes out a case of perverse appreciation of the evidence or that the conclusions were arrived at without any evidence at all or that the judgment is infected with an error of law.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Failure to prove transaction and due execution of the cheque
- Lack of evidence establishing proprietorship and payee status
- Inadequate documentation for successful prosecution

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant, a proprietor of a cement center, alleged that the respondent, engaged in selling cement, issued a cheque that was dishonored. The trial court found the appellant failed to prove the transaction and due execution of the cheque. The appellant's grievance was with the appreciation of evidence, not its content. The court noted the appellant did not establish his proprietorship adequately, which was crucial for the prosecution. The appellant also failed to prove himself as the payee of the cheque, as required by Section 142 of the Act.

The court emphasized the necessity of producing documents to support the claims made. Despite the appellant's assertions about credit transactions and possession of relevant documents, no such evidence was presented. The absence of crucial documentation, including proof of proprietorship and payee status, weakened the appellant's case. The court highlighted the appellant's failure to meet the burden of proof necessary for invoking the presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

The judgment concluded that the appellant did not provide sufficient grounds for challenging the order of acquittal. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting a prima facie case and the absence of grounds for re-evaluating the trial court's findings. The judgment reinforced the principle that re-appreciation of evidence is warranted only in cases of perverse appreciation, absence of evidence, or legal errors, none of which were established by the appellant in this instance.