2019 (12) TMI 102 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of accused of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - HELD THAT - The accused having admitted issuance of cheque and stop payment instructions etc., there is no need to delve into the evidence of this witness. The defence led evidence of four witnesses. DW-1 was an employee of the accused, DW-2 is an employee of the bank from where the son of complainant is supposed to have withdrawn the cash of ₹ 10,000/-. DW-3 is one Arvind Chagan Joshi to whom the computer papers worth ₹ 20,140/- was delivered by Shree Balaji Enterprises and DW-4 is the accused himself. DW-1 confirms having delivered 32 boxes of computer from Shree Balaji Enterprises to Arvind Chagan Joshi, i.e., DW-3. DW-3 is an independent witness who states that on instructions of complainant he received 32 boxes of paper rolls alongwith challan in his factory because complainant requested him to keep it with him as they did not have enough storage space. The Trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted the accused. It is settled law that where two views are possible, the benefit should tilt in favour of accused. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the accused to be guilty of offence beyond reasonable doubt. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused 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 acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting the accused, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law - the order of acquittal need not be interfered with - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
2. Lack of explanation for delay in cheque deposit and discrepancies in the complainant's case.
3. Discrepancies in evidence regarding cheque acceptance and subsequent transactions.
4. Non-production of material witness and impact on the case.
5. Evaluation of evidence and benefit of doubt principle in acquittal cases.

Issue 1: The appeal challenges the acquittal order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The appellant contested the judgment of the Trial Court that acquitted the accused based on the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue 2: The complaint lacked explanations for the delay in depositing the cheque and discrepancies in the complainant's case. The Court noted the omission in the complaint regarding the acceptance of a post-dated cheque and the delayed deposit of the cheque, raising doubts about the complainant's version of events.

Issue 3: Discrepancies emerged in the evidence, with the accused providing a detailed account of transactions and defenses. The accused's version highlighted transactions with different entities and adjustments made, contrasting the complainant's claims. The Court observed inconsistencies in the evidence presented by both parties.

Issue 4: The non-production of a material witness, Jagdish Saboo, was highlighted as a crucial omission by the prosecution. The Court emphasized the significance of Jagdish Saboo's testimony in clarifying the facts presented by the defense witnesses. The absence of this key witness was deemed prejudicial to the accused's case.

Issue 5: The judgment discussed the principles governing appeals against acquittals, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The Court cited legal precedents outlining the appellate court's powers to review evidence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal. Ultimately, the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused was upheld based on the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.