2021 (6) TMI 291 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - rebuttal of presumption - preponderance of probability - HELD THAT - In the case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. However, the Criminal Procedure Code put no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of the power of the Appellate Court to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of the acquittal is founded. But it is settled that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. There is no quarrel about the above said legal proposition. But, this is a case where the accused has succeeded to bring on record such facts and circumstances - It is settled that there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden. The accused need to substantiate his case based on preponderance of probabilities. In the case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. An order of acquittal cannot be interfered with as matter of course. An order of acquittal can only be interfered with when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. Only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. There are no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal by the court - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complainant proved the execution and delivery of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal by the trial court.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Proof of Execution and Delivery of the Cheque
The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ?60,000 and issued a cheque towards the discharge of this debt, which was dishonored for insufficient funds. The trial court found that the complainant failed to prove the execution and delivery of the cheque. The evidence included testimonies from PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (an employee of the complainant), and PW3 (the complainant's wife), along with documentary evidence (Exts. P1 to P5). The trial court noted discrepancies in the complainant's statements regarding the date of borrowal and found the defense's version—that the cheque was given as security for a ?30,000 loan—more probable. The appellate court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and insufficient to prove the transaction and execution of the cheque.

Issue 2: Rebuttal of Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act
The complainant argued that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act should apply, as the accused admitted to signing the cheque. However, the accused contended that the cheque was given as security and not for the alleged debt. The trial court accepted the defense's version, supported by evidence such as bank records and witness testimonies (DW1 and DW2), which showed that the accused had borrowed ?30,000 and provided a signed blank cheque as security. The appellate court agreed, noting that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by presenting a more probable version of events.

Issue 3: Interference with the Order of Acquittal
The appellate court reviewed the principles governing interference with an acquittal, citing several Supreme Court judgments, including Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Ganpat v. State of Haryana. These principles emphasize that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there are compelling and substantial reasons, such as a perverse judgment or a miscarriage of justice. The appellate court found no such reasons in this case. The trial court's conclusions were based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence, and the accused's presumption of innocence was further reinforced by the acquittal. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's judgment was not perverse or unreasonable and thus dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as the complainant failed to prove the execution and delivery of the cheque, and the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The appellate court found no compelling reason to interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal.