2023 (10) TMI 1249 - HC - Indian Laws

Cheque bounce case acquittal upheld as no legally enforceable debt proven under Section 138

Kerala HC dismissed appeal challenging acquittal under Sec 138 NI Act. Accused issued cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. Trial court found no ... Dishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - existence of legally enforceable debt or not - Presumption of innocence in favour of accused - acquittal of accused under Sec 255 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- This Court reminds itself of its scope and powers in deciding an appeal against an order of acquittal. It is well-settled in a host of judicial pronouncements that the Appellate Court should be slow and watchful in interfering with an order of acquittal. It is only when the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court is manifestly erroneous and palpably perverse, the Appellate Court should take a contrary view. It is more because an order of acquittal has the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. In the instant case, the complainant has alleged that the accused had issued Ext P6 cheque in his favour in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque, on presentation to the bank for encashment, got dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ and despite receipt of the demand notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the accused committed the above offence - Indisputably, the complaint has been filed by the complainant ( Mathew K.Cherian represented by his power of attorney holder PW1) in his individual capacity. PW1 has not testified that the accused had any business transaction with the complainant in his individual capacity. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, on an appreciation of the oral testimonies of PW1 and DW1 and the materials on record, came to the legitimate conclusion that Ext P6 cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant. In the case on hand, in addition to the finding that there was no business transaction between the complainant and the accused as alleged in the complaint, there is also no specific assertion as to the competence and knowledge of PW1 as regards the alleged transaction between the complainant and the accused. Thus, the learned Magistrate has rightly concluded that Ext P6 cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt. On a re-appreciation of the materials on record, this Court is of the definite view that there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate holding the accused not guilty for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I Act - appeal dismissed. Issues:The appeal questions the correctness and legality of the judgment finding the accused not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Brief facts:The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque which got dishonored due to insufficient funds. The accused denied the accusations and stated that he had no business transaction with the complainant.Analysis:The Trial Court acquitted the accused after examining witnesses and evidence. The Appellate Court considered the principles regarding appeals against orders of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.Legal principles:The Supreme Court has outlined that an order of acquittal should not be reversed unless manifestly erroneous or palpably perverse. The Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless it is so perverse that another view is not plausible.Decision:The Appellate Court found that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt and that there was no business transaction between the parties as alleged. The Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court, confirming the accused's not guilty verdict under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was dismissed.