2024 (6) TMI 675 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed in Section 138 dishonour case as accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 118

SUBHASHINI C.K. Versus REMANI P.D., STATE OF KERALA

Kerala HC dismissed appeal in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 NI Act. Trial court had acquitted accused after finding statutory presumptions ... Dishonour of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - legally enforceable debt or not - acquittal of the accused of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - adduced satisfactory evidence to prove the execution and issuance of cheque or not - rebuttal of statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- In HARBHAJAN SINGH HARBHAJAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [1965 (3) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT], the Honourable Supreme Court held that the onus on an accused person might well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings, and just as in civil proceedings the court trying an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities. The Honourable Supreme Court considered the nature of the standard of proof required for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in MS NARAYANA MENON @ MANI VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR. [2006 (7) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT], and it was held that if some material is brought on record consistent with the innocence of the accused, which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. It is well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in K PRAKASHAN VERSUS PK SURENDERAN [2007 (10) TMI 551 - SUPREME COURT]. When the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable, it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. There are no reason to interfere with the finding in the impugned judgment that the accused has succeeded in rebutting the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant and in that circumstance, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Issues Involved:The appeal challenges the acquittal of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Execution and Issuance of Cheque- The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds.- Trial court found the complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.- Appellant argued the trial court failed to appreciate evidence correctly.- Accused argued the cheque was given as security in a chitty transaction.- Accused's evidence rebutted statutory presumptions in favor of the complainant.Issue 2: Evidence and Testimony- Complainant's evidence lacked clarity on the nature of the transaction and issuance of the cheque.- Accused's witness stated the cheque was given as security in a chitty transaction.- Accused denied any financial transaction with the complainant.- Standard of proof required to rebut statutory presumptions was discussed.Issue 3: Legal Precedents- Various legal precedents were cited regarding the burden of proof to rebut statutory presumptions.- The standard of proof required to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was explained.- Appellate court should not reverse a judgment of acquittal if two views are possible.Conclusion:- The court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's finding that the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions.- The appeal was dismissed, and any pending applications were closed.