2022 (7) TMI 1491 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - failure to rebut the onus of proof and statutory presumption against him under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act - HELD THAT - It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. That the duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case, the accused has succeeded in rebutting the presumption, showing preponderance of probability and hence, onus shifts upon the complainant to prove otherwise, however, as said earlier, the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque was drawn towards legally enforceable debt as there is nothing on record to show that the land belonged to the complainant and that, he had 30% share in the said land - On re-appreciation and reevaluation of the oral and the documentary evidence on record, it transpires that the complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled. The Court has gone through in detail the impugned judgment and order and found that the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously considered the evidence and came to such a conclusion and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to such a conclusion, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the complainant has failed to bring home the charge against accused for want of sufficient material. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge do not call for any interference - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in reversing the conviction and recording the acquittal of the accused.
2. Whether the debt in question was legally enforceable.
3. Whether the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was properly rebutted by the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of Acquittal by the Sessions Judge
The appeal challenges the acquittal of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who reversed the trial court's conviction. The appellate court has full power to review and re-appreciate the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, it must bear in mind that the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the trial court's acquittal. If two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality.

Issue 2: Legally Enforceable Debt
The complainant alleged that the accused issued cheques as part of the sale consideration for a land transaction. The cheques were dishonored due to "Stop Payment" instructions. The complainant claimed the cheques were issued for discharge of legal liability. However, the accused argued that the land in question belonged to a trust and not the complainant, thus invalidating the agreement and making the debt unenforceable.

Key Points:
- The agreement (Exh. 29) was entered into for the sale of 30% share in the land.
- The accused made part payment and issued cheques for the remaining amount.
- There was no evidence on record to show the complainant's ownership or share in the land.
- The land belonged to a trust, and there was no proof of the complainant's right to sell it.
- The transaction appeared to be without consideration, as the accused gained nothing from it.

Issue 3: Presumption Under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defense. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the debt was not legally enforceable due to the lack of consideration and ownership issues related to the land.

Key Points:
- The accused demonstrated that the land did not belong to the complainant.
- The complainant failed to prove the legally enforceable debt.
- The accused's defense was supported by the lack of evidence regarding the complainant's ownership of the land.
- The transaction was without consideration, as the accused did not receive any benefit.

Conclusion:
The learned Sessions Judge meticulously considered the evidence and concluded that the debt was not legally enforceable. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act by showing preponderance of probability. The appellate court found no material illegality or perversity in the Sessions Judge's approach and upheld the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal were confirmed.