2022 (1) TMI 1005 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed: Importance of presumption of innocence emphasized in acquittal judgment

N.P. Balakrishnan Versus P. Girish and Ors.

N.P. Balakrishnan Versus P. Girish and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the finding of acquittal by the trial court.2. Allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Rebuttal of presumption by the accused.5. Examination of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the appellant’s case.6. Evaluation of evidence and the burden of proof.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to the finding of acquittal by the trial court:The appellant, who was the complainant in C.C. No. 820 of 2011, challenged the trial court's acquittal of the 1st respondent. The trial court had acquitted the 1st respondent under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. after finding him not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The appellant alleged that the 1st respondent had issued a cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs, which was dishonored due to 'payment stopped by the drawer.' The appellant claimed that this cheque was issued as part of a repayment agreement after the 1st respondent failed to secure a job for the appellant's son, for which the appellant had paid Rs. 3.5 lakhs.3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The appellant’s counsel argued that the cheque carried a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability unless rebutted by the accused. The appellant relied on several judgments to support this contention, including Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan and Rangappa v. Sri. Mohan.4. Rebuttal of presumption by the accused:The 1st respondent contended that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is rebuttable and claimed that he had not issued any cheque to the appellant. He argued that he had lost certain cheques in 2007 and had issued a stop memo in 2010, which was evidenced by Ext. C2. The 1st respondent's defense was supported by the testimony of DW1, the bank manager, who confirmed the stop memo due to lost cheques.5. Examination of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the appellant’s case:The court noted several discrepancies in the appellant’s case:- The date or year of the initial payment of Rs. 3.5 lakhs was not mentioned in the complaint.- Details of the bank or the nature of the employment promised were omitted.- The appellant's claim of additional expenses incurred due to borrowing funds was unsupported by evidence.- Contradictions in the appellant's statements regarding the total amount agreed upon for repayment and the actual amount of the cheque issued.6. Evaluation of evidence and the burden of proof:The court emphasized that once the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is rebutted by the accused, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the offence. The court found that the 1st respondent had successfully raised a probable defense, creating doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The court also highlighted the importance of the double presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal, as noted in Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka.Conclusion:The court concluded that the discrepancies and improbabilities in the appellant’s case, along with the defense raised by the 1st respondent, were sufficient to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139. Consequently, the court found no merit in the appellant’s contentions and upheld the trial court’s judgment of acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment dated 23.07.2013 in C.C. No. 820/2011 was confirmed.