2015 (12) TMI 1335 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of acquittal - Cheque was bounced due to Insufficient Funds - nature of transactions - accused submitted that it had issued the cheque in question only on account of security against storage of rice and not to discharge their financial liability. - Held that - A bare reading of the impugned judgment of acquittal would show that the learned trial Court has considered each and every relevant aspect of the matter, before passing the impugned judgment. Documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record by both the parties, was examined, considered and appreciated in the correct perspective, before arriving at a judicious conclusion. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned trial Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgments of acquittal and the same deserve to be upheld. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment, so as to enable this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned trial Court. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that whenever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of acquittal, is to be followed by the courts. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned judgment of acquittal is well justified on facts as well as in law and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well. It is unhesitatingly held that the learned trial Court was well-justified on facts as well as in law, for passing the impugned judgment of acquittal and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cheque in question was issued as security or to discharge an existing financial liability.
2. Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and legal principles in acquitting the accused.
3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal judgment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cheque Issued as Security vs. Financial Liability:
The primary issue was whether the cheque issued by the respondent was for security purposes or to discharge an existing financial liability. The applicant-complainant argued that the cheque was issued to cover a shortage of rice from the milling process. However, the trial court found that the cheque was issued as security. The evidence, including physical verification reports, indicated that there was no shortage in the stock of paddy/rice. The court cited case law, such as *Sudhir Kumar Bhalla vs. Jagdish Chand* and *M.S. Naranyana Menon@ Mani vs State of Kerala*, which established that a cheque issued for security purposes does not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Appreciation of Evidence and Legal Principles:
The trial court's judgment was based on a thorough examination of both documentary and oral evidence. The court noted that the applicant failed to prove any shortage in the stock of the accused, and thus, there was no existing liability or debt at the time the cheque was issued. The trial court's decision was supported by testimonies and physical verification reports that confirmed the stock was intact. The trial court also correctly applied legal principles, referencing relevant case law to support its conclusion that a security cheque does not constitute a financial liability under Section 138.

3. Appellate Court's Interference with Acquittal:
The appellate court emphasized that it should be slow to interfere with a trial court's acquittal, especially when two views are possible. The court referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines in *Arulvelu v. State*, which stated that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there are "very substantial and compelling reasons." The appellate court found no patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court's judgment. It noted that the trial court had the advantage of observing witness demeanors and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's judgment was well-justified on facts and in law.

Conclusion:
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding no error in the trial court's judgment. The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed, with the court reiterating that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. The appellate court emphasized the principle that an acquittal should not be lightly interfered with, especially when the trial court's judgment is neither perverse nor wholly unsustainable in law.