2023 (8) TMI 695 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - existence of legally enforceable debt or not - acquittal of accused u/s 138 of NI Act - rebuttal of statutory presumption u/s 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT - An examination of fact situation in the instant case reveals that Rupesh Jain, PW-1 has stated that the accused has requested for loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for her personal need, but in cross-examination he could not specify on what date, month or year, he had advanced loan of such a big amount to accused Chanda Bansal. Although he had financial transactions with the husband and son of accused, but there was no transaction between him and the accused. In the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has considered the entire material against accused on record and on reasonable appreciation of evidence, after assigning detailed and cogent reasons, has acquitted the accused/respondent. The findings of Lower Court cannot be said to be contrary to the evidence on record. The judgment is not patently illegal or perverse, therefore, no case for interference in the finding of acquittal is made out. This application for leave to appeal against acquittal deserves to be and is hereby rejected - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of CrPC against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.577/2016, where the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Loan transaction and cheque dishonour
The appellant alleged that the respondent took a loan of Rs.20,00,000 and issued a cheque which was dishonoured. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent, stating that there was doubt regarding the loan transaction. The appellant argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate evidence, and the respondent's defense of the stolen cheque was not proven.

Issue 2: Failure to consider presumption under NI Act
The appellant contended that the Trial Court did not consider the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act and wrongly refused to accept the loan transaction. The respondent argued that there was no commercial transaction and the loan details were unclear. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent based on doubt regarding the loan.

Issue 3: Scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments on the scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal. It highlighted principles such as the power to review evidence, reversal of acquittal only if the lower court's conclusions are unreasonable, and the need for compelling reasons to reverse an acquittal.

Conclusion:
After examining the facts and legal position, the Court found that the Trial Court had reasonably acquitted the respondent based on doubts about the loan transaction. The Court concluded that there was no error in the Trial Court's decision, as it was not contrary to the evidence on record. The application for leave to appeal against acquittal was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed in favor of the respondent.