2023 (8) TMI 841 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - acquittal of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I Act - HELD THAT - The scope of interference in an appeal against Acquittal has been gone into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JASWANT SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA 2000 (4) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was observed While sitting in Judgment over an acquittal, the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative, the order of Acquittal is not to be disturbed. In light of well-settled legal principles, the burden lies on the accused to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances, which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration. If the accused discharges the onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful and the execution of the promissory note, the onus would be shifted to the complainant. Then he will be obliged to prove the existence of the consideration. The available evidence clearly indicates that the accused had no compelling need to borrow the specified amount, considering that they possessed Rs. 7,00,000/- in their bank account at the time of the Exs. P1 and P2 promissory note transactions. The complainant has not provided a satisfactory explanation or demonstrated the source of her income that would enable her to lend such a substantial sum to the accused. The accused have presented substantial evidence before the Court, and based on this, the complainant's assertion that they issued a cheque on 03.02.2013 is proven to be inaccurate. The evidence adduced supports the view that the accused's version is more likely and credible in this context - It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal, if another view is possible, then also the appellate Court cannot substitute its view by reversing the Acquittal into conviction unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. In the instant case, the appellant has yet to be able to point out how the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. The trial Court's conclusion was found to be erroneous, and the appellate Court s Judgment aligns with the settled legal position. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused committed an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused.

Summary:

Issue 1: Offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act

The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 3,00,000/- each and issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- which was dishonored due to "payment stopped by the drawer." The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.

The accused contended that the cheque was given as a blank cheque in April 2010 when they borrowed Rs. 50,000/- and later stopped payment in July 2011. They argued that the complainant fabricated the promissory notes and cheque.

The trial court's findings were based on the presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. However, the appellate court found that the complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend Rs. 6,00,000/- and that the accused had sufficient funds in their account during the relevant period, making it unlikely that they borrowed such a large amount.

Issue 2: Error in Acquittal by Additional Sessions Judge

The appellate court acquitted the accused, finding that the complainant's version was less credible. The court noted that the accused had more than Rs. 7,00,000/- in their account at the time of the alleged loan, making it improbable that they borrowed Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant. The complainant also failed to provide any documentary evidence of her financial capacity to lend such an amount.

The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal and that the appellate court's findings were not perverse, contrary to material on record, or manifestly erroneous.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court found no compelling reason to interfere with the appellate court's judgment, which was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and consistent with the settled legal principles.