2015 (8) TMI 1555 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable liability or not - acquittal of accused - framing of charges - presumption of innocence - Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - In the present case, there is no conclusive proof of actual payment of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner-complainant to the accused/respondent. The petitioner has failed to show that at any point of time, he was having this amount in his account. Even the date on which the alleged transaction took place has not come either in the complainant or in the statement of the petitioner. The purpose of advancing alleged friendly loan has also not come forth. The stand of the petitioner that he had advanced the loan to the accused by taking the money from his father is also without any foundation in the absence of examination of his father as a witness. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is detailed and reasoned judgment and no fault can be found therewith. The finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. In fact there is no infirmity in the reasoning assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused/respondent. It is a settled law as has been held in C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, 2002 (11) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT that even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused. In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible. The leave to appeal stands declined.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of acquittal under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a petition challenging an order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner alleged that the accused issued a cheque which was dishonored, leading to legal proceedings. The petitioner contended that despite the trial court finding that the cheque was issued by the accused, the complaint was dismissed. However, the court found no conclusive proof of payment by the petitioner to the accused. It was noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate having the amount in his account or the purpose of the alleged loan. The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the lack of foundation in the petitioner's claims, including the absence of his father's testimony to support the loan claim. The judgment highlighted that the trial court's decision was detailed and reasoned, with no apparent fault found. The court distinguished a cited case law and concluded that the acquittal was not perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.

The judgment further discussed the principle that in cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused: the presumption of innocence and the reluctance of the court to interfere unless guilt is conclusively proven. Referring to established law, the court emphasized that even if an alternative view on evidence exists, interference with an acquittal is not warranted. The court declined leave to appeal and ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision underscored the importance of evidence, the burden of proof on the petitioner, and the high threshold required to overturn an acquittal.