Court affirms acquittal due to lack of proof of lending capacity and accused's financial status.

The High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court found that the complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the amount in question, and the accused had sufficient funds in their account, making it unlikely they borrowed the sum. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and concluded that the appellate court's decision was not erroneous or perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused committed an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused.

Summary:

Issue 1: Offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act

The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 3,00,000/- each and issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- which was dishonored due to "payment stopped by the drawer." The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.

The accused contended that the cheque was given as a blank cheque in April 2010 when they borrowed Rs. 50,000/- and later stopped payment in July 2011. They argued that the complainant fabricated the promissory notes and cheque.

The trial court's findings were based on the presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. However, the appellate court found that the complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend Rs. 6,00,000/- and that the accused had sufficient funds in their account during the relevant period, making it unlikely that they borrowed such a large amount.

Issue 2: Error in Acquittal by Additional Sessions Judge

The appellate court acquitted the accused, finding that the complainant's version was less credible. The court noted that the accused had more than Rs. 7,00,000/- in their account at the time of the alleged loan, making it improbable that they borrowed Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant. The complainant also failed to provide any documentary evidence of her financial capacity to lend such an amount.

The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal and that the appellate court's findings were not perverse, contrary to material on record, or manifestly erroneous.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court found no compelling reason to interfere with the appellate court's judgment, which was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and consistent with the settled legal principles.

---