2019 (9) TMI 391 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed in cheque bounce case; acquittal quashed due to evidence misappreciation. Accused to face sentencing.

Bhoop Singh Versus Soni Kumar

The High Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Emphasizing the statutory ... Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - section 138 of NI Act - acquittal of accused in respect of charges framed - Statutory presumption in favor of holder - HELD THAT:- Cheque embodied in Ext. CW1/B,upon its presentation before the Bank concerned, hence for want of sufficient funds, thereat occurring, in, the accounts, of, the respondent, stood declined, to be honoured. The memos, issued by the Bank concerned, making, the requisite echoing(s), vis-à-vis, Ext. CW1/B, upon its presentation therebefore, it being declined to be honoured, for, wants thereat, of, sufficient funds, being borne, in the accounts, of, the respondent/accused, are respectively borne in Ext. CW1/C, and, in Ext.CW1/D. This Court holds, that the learned trial Court, has not appraised, the entire evidence, on record in a wholesome, and, harmonious manner apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record by the learned appellate Court, suffers, from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non-appreciation, of, evidence on record. Appeal allowed - The accused/respondent be produced before this Court, for his being heard on quantum of sentence, on 26.8.2019. Issues involved:Appeal against judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.Analysis:1. Background and Allegations:The appellant/complainant filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate in a case involving a cheque issued by the accused for a loan repayment. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds, despite receiving a legal notice for repayment.2. Trial Proceedings:After taking cognizance of the case, the trial court summoned the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence during the trial. The complainant presented evidence, including the bounced cheque and legal notice, while the accused did not present any defense evidence after his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C.3. Findings of Acquittal:The trial court, upon appraisal of evidence, recorded findings of acquittal in favor of the accused, leading to the appellant's dissatisfaction with the judgment. The appellant contended that the trial court's decision was based on misappreciation of evidence and sought a reversal of the acquittal.4. Appellate Arguments:The appellant's counsel argued for a reversal of the acquittal, emphasizing the need for a proper evaluation of evidence to establish the accused's liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In contrast, the respondent's counsel defended the trial court's decision, asserting that the acquittal was justified based on a balanced appreciation of evidence.5. Evaluation of Evidence:The High Court meticulously evaluated the evidence on record, focusing on the bounced cheque, legal notice, and the accused's response. The court noted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act, which favored the complainant as the holder of the dishonored cheque.6. Statutory Presumption and Conclusion:The court highlighted the statutory presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque, emphasizing that the complainant was validly holding the bounced cheque and entitled to seek repayment for the legally enforceable debt. The absence of rebuttal evidence from the accused strengthened the presumption in the complainant's favor.7. Judgment and Decision:Based on the analysis of evidence and legal provisions, the High Court concluded that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, leading to a flawed judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the acquittal judgment was quashed, and the accused was directed to appear before the High Court for sentencing considerations.