Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The complainant had to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's view was supported by omissions in the complainant's evidence, the unexplained delay in presenting the cheque, and the defence version supported by documentary and oral evidence. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must keep in mind the double presumption in favour of the accused, namely the presumption of innocence and the strengthened presumption after acquittal. Where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, interference is unwarranted.
Conclusion: The acquittal was not shown to be illegal, improper, or contrary to law, and the appeal was not liable to succeed.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court declined to disturb the trial court's acquittal and upheld the finding in favour of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not warranted where the trial court's view is a reasonable one and the evidence admits of two possible conclusions; the accused retains a double presumption of innocence.