2013 (1) TMI 55 - HC - Companies Law

Dishonour of cheque - prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - the accused borrowed Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant and issued cheque towards the discharge of the said liability which got dishonored when presented for encashment - Interfere with the order of acquittal - Held that - It is on the basis of the admitted facts and evidence that the Magistrate has found the complainant has no capacity at the relevant point of time to lend Rs.3 lakhs to the accused. According to Magistrate a person in dearth of money and who faces imminent danger of attachment of the property from his creditor, cannot be believed to have lent Rs.3 lakhs at a time when attachment steps are pending against him. Also the complainant s claim to advancing a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused without getting any documentary proof is not correct. On the other hand, the Magistrate was prepared to accept the case of the defence version that the cheque was clandestinely procured by the complainant with the help of the then wife of the accused, which is the consistent case of the accused right from issuing the reply to the statutory notice of the complainant. Thus, on an examination of the findings of the court below and the materials and evidence referred it can be seen that there is no perversity or illegality in such finding of the court below so as to interfere with the said finding in appeal. As decided in State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal (2012 (12) TMI 877 - SUPREME COURT) only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Thus in present case no substantial reasons are made out to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused and to disturb the double presumption of innocence bolstered as per the judgment in question.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Capacity of complainant to lend money - Credibility of complainant's case - Perversity in trial court's findings - Special leave under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought special leave to appeal against the trial court's order acquitting the accused. The petitioner contended that the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and failed to provide a consistent explanation regarding how the cheque ended up with the complainant. The trial court's decision was challenged on the grounds that it erroneously concluded the complainant was bankrupt at the time of the transaction, thus questioning the existence of the transaction itself. The petitioner argued for interference with the trial court's finding based on these discrepancies.

The complainant's case revolved around a loan of Rs.3 lakhs extended to the accused, evidenced by a dishonored cheque. During the trial, the complainant's credibility was questioned by the trial court due to financial inconsistencies and pending recovery proceedings against him. The trial court found that the complainant's financial situation during the alleged transaction period cast doubt on his capacity to lend the amount in question. Additionally, the defense's consistent claim that the cheque was obtained clandestinely further weakened the complainant's case. The trial court's decision was based on these discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

Upon review, the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's findings to warrant interference. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the High Court emphasized that appellate courts should be cautious in overturning acquittals and must consider the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. In this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to challenge the trial court's order of acquittal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Leave Petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish a prima facie case to contest the trial court's decision.

In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on the complainant's credibility, financial inconsistencies, and the lack of substantial grounds to challenge the trial court's acquittal order. The decision underscored the importance of upholding the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with acquittals, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal for special leave.