2015 (1) TMI 1365 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - Whether the two appeals against the lower revisional Court s acquittal and reversal judgments are not maintainable and this Court cannot sit otherwise against the impugned acquittal revision Judgments, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and otherwise on merits and with what observations and conclusions? - Held that - once there is a bar for second revision, it is to consider if appeal won t lie, whether to decide as a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - the power of revision to entertain by High Court, even taken away under any of the provisions of Cr.P.C. that can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - even revision or appeal is a bar by virtue of any of the specific provisions of Cr.P.C. the High Court s inherent power can be exercised in deciding the matter before it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. within its scope; that is not a bar from what is discussed supra from several and settled expressions of the Apex Court to decide the two appeals on merits by taking the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for otherwise not maintainable under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. or proviso to Section 372 amended Cr.P.C. The reversal and acquittal judgments of the lower revisional Court by sitting against the conviction judgments of the trial Court are unsustainable and outcome of ill appreciation of facts and law that resulted grave injustice to the complainant-bank and the same is prone to the jurisdiction of this Court by way of appeal under Section 378(4) read with Section 378(1)(b) and (3) and otherwise under Section 372 and its proviso read with Section 2(w)(a) and otherwise within inherent power of this Court saved by the Section 482 Cr.P.C., for this Court to set aside the said revision Court reversal judgments to secure ends of justice being necessary. The two appeals taken under Section 482 Cr.P.C. from otherwise if not maintainable either under Section 378(4) or under Section 372 amended Cr.P.C. and the lower revision Court s acquittal judgments are set aside by restoring the trial Court s conviction judgments - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeals against the lower revisional court's acquittal and reversal judgments.
2. Legality and correctness of the lower revisional court's acquittal judgments.
3. Application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and related presumptions.
4. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals:
The primary issue was whether the appeals against the lower revisional court's acquittal judgments were maintainable. The court discussed the provisions under Chapter XXIX of the Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 372, 378, and 482. The court noted that the complainant, as a victim, has the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against any order passed by a criminal court, including orders of acquittal by a revisional court. The court also referenced several judgments to support the maintainability of such appeals, including *Sujith Kumar Rana* and *Krishnan V. Krishnaveni*, which clarified that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked to ensure justice.

2. Legality and Correctness of Lower Revisional Court's Acquittal Judgments:
The court scrutinized the lower revisional court's judgments that had reversed the trial court's conviction judgments. The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing cheques that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The revisional court had acquitted the accused, citing the complainant's failure to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability. The High Court found that the revisional court had misappreciated the evidence and the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, which favor the complainant once a cheque is shown to have been issued and dishonored. The High Court held that the burden was on the accused to rebut these presumptions, which they failed to do.

3. Application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court elaborated on the provisions of Section 138 and related sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It emphasized that the Act creates a deeming offense by fiction of law with certain rebuttable presumptions. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including *Narayan Menon v. State of Kerala* and *Rangappa v. Mohan*, to explain the legal framework and the burden of proof. The court reiterated that once the complainant establishes that a cheque was issued and dishonored, the presumption is in favor of the complainant, and the accused must provide evidence to rebut this presumption.

4. Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court discussed its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the process. It cited multiple Supreme Court judgments, including *Krishnan v. Krishnaveni* and *Popular Muthaiah v. State*, to affirm that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers even when there is a statutory bar on revision or appeal. The court concluded that it could decide the matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the appeals were otherwise not maintainable under Section 378(4) or the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the lower revisional court's acquittal judgments and restored the trial court's conviction judgments. It modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the day and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,20,000, directing that Rs. 3,00,000 be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 20,000 as fine to the State. The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the process.