TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt at Canara Bank, Branch Sri Muktsar Sahib presented the above said cheque for encashment on 26.05.2017 to his banker and then his banker sent the said cheque to the banker of the accused i.e. HDFC Bank, Branch New Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib on the same date i.e. 26.05.2017 and the said banker returned the cheque in question being dishonoured along with memo dated 26.05.2017 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" to Canara Bank, Sri Muktsar Sahib and thereafter Canara Bank, Branch Sri Muktsar Sahib returned the said cheque along with covering letter dated 26.05.2017 to the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant had given the above said amount to the accused out of his saving which he had kept at home made from his part time work and salary from his job. A legal notice dated 13.06.2017 was issued by the complainant through his advocate to the accused but the same was not received by the accused intentionally and the same was received back by the counsel of complainant, meaning thereby the accused was having full knowledge of notice. However, the accused did not make the payment of above said cheque to the complainant till the date, leading to the filing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied copy of complaint Ex.D4, attested copy of application dated 17.09.2014 Ex.D5 and attested copy of application dated 24.01.2019 given by Gobind Lal to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib Ex.D6. No other witness was examined by the accused and the accused closed his evidence. 7. In order to establish his case, the complainant examined CW1- Sayad Rashid, Assistant Manager, Canara Bank, Branch Sri Muktsar Sahib, who stepped into the witness-box and brought the summoned record pertaining to cheque no.000043 dated 26.05.2017 Ex.C1, which was presented by Ashok Kumar, complainant in their bank on 26.05.2017 and same was sent to HDFC Bank on the same date for its encashment but the same was received back having being dishonored vide memo Ex.C2 having insufficient amount in the account of accused Pawan Kumar. CW1 also testified that the aforesaid cheque was returned to the complainant Ashok Kumar through covering letter dated 26.05.2017 Ex.C3. CW1 identified the signatures of Nikhil Yadav, the then Manager of the Bank at point Mark A on Ex.C3. Apart from that CW1 placed on record certified the copy of Saving Account of Ashok Kumar Ex.C4 and the certified copy of entry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debt or other liability. The accused had admitted that the cheque bore his signatures. The evidence of the witnesses including the complainant was sufficient to establish that an amount of Rs.90,000/- had in fact been advanced as a loan to the accused and the accused issued the cheque in question which was dishonoured. It was thus, contended that the complainant had established his case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused had not been able to rebut the presumption under the Act. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. 14. The primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that once the execution of the cheque was admitted, a presumption arose in favour of the complainant and the said presumption could not be rebutted by the accused and thus, the judgment of acquittal ought to be set aside. 15. With respect to the contention of the complainant that a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque existed in view of the provisions of the Act, it would be necessary to first examine the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reads as under:- "118. Presu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act are rebuttable in nature. 30. What would be the effect of the expressions 'May Presume', 'Shall Presume' and 'Conclusive Proof' has been considered by this Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Ors., 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 235" [(2005) 12 SCC 1] in the following terms: "...It is true that the legislature used two different phraseologies "shall be presumed" and "may be presumed" in Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and furthermore although provided for the mode and manner of rebuttal of such presumption as regards the right to mines and minerals said to be vested in the Government vis- a-vis the absence thereof in relation to the lands presumed to be retained by the landowners but the same would not mean that the words "shall presume" would be conclusive. The meaning of the expressions "may presume" and "shall presume" have been explained in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872, from a perusal whereof it would be evident that whenever it is directed that the court shall presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless disproved. In terms of the said provision, thus, the expression "shall presume" c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non- existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt". 34.This Court, therefore, clearly opined that it is not necessary for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 of the Act, the presumption of law as distinguished from presumption of fact is drawn, the court has no other option but to draw the same in every case where the factual basis of raising the presumption is established. Pal, J. speaking for a 3-Judge Bench, however, opined: "..Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter, all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the nonexistence of the presumed fact. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a pruden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 2009(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 478", held as under: "9. In order to determine the question whether offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is made out against the appellant, it will be necessary to examine the scope and ambit of presumptions to be raised as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. In a suit to enforce a simple contract, the plaintiff has to aver in his pleading that it was made for good consideration and must substantiate it by evidence. But to this rule, the negotiable instruments are an exception. In a significant departure from the general rule applicable to contracts, Section 118 of the Act provides certain presumptions to be raised. This Section lays down some special rules of evidence relating to presumptions. The reason for these presumptions is that, negotiable instrument passes from hand to hand on endorsement and it would make trading very difficult and negotiability of the instrument impossible, unless certain presumptions are made. The presumption, therefore, is a matter of principle to facilitate negotiability as well as trade. Section 118 of the Act provides presumptions to be raised until the contrary is proved (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 139 of the Act stipulates that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability. Applying the definition of the word 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138 of the Act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue. 12. The defence of the appellant was that he had agreed to purchase woolen carpets from the respondent and had issued the cheques by way of advance and that the respondent did not supply the carpets. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled to establish his case under Section 138 of the Act as required by law and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside. (Emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rangappa Versus Mohan, 2010(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 164", held as under:- "9. Ordinarily in cheque bouncing cases, what the courts have to consider is whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by Section 139 of the Act. With respect to the facts of the present case, it must be clarified that contrary to the trial court's finding, Section 138 of the Act can indeed be attracted when a cheque is dishonoured on account of 'stop payment' instructions sent by the accused to his bank in respect of a post-dated cheque, irrespective of insufficiency of funds in the account. This position was clarified by this Court in Goa Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 131 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 55 : (2003) 3 SCC 232, wherein it was held : "Chapter XVII containing Sections 138 to 142 was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g for the appellant-accused has relied on a decision given by a division bench of this Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 695 : 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 498 : 2008(1) R.A.J. 279 : (2008) 4 SCC 54, the operative observations from which are reproduced below (S.B. Sinha, J. at Paras. 29-32, 34 and 45): "29. Section 138 of the Act has three ingredients viz.: (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. 30. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance with legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for dischar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same." (emphasis supplied) 11. With respect to the decision cited above, counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant has submitted that the observations to the effect that the 'existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act' and that 'it merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability' [See Para. 30 in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra)] are in conflict with the statutory provisions as well as an established line of precedents of this Court. It will thus be necessary to examine some of the extracts cited by the respondent-claimant. For instance, in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 460 : (2001) 6 SCC 16, it was held (Ruma Pal, J. at Paras. 22- 23): "22. Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court 'shall presume' the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, , it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. ..." This decision then proceeded to cite an extract from the earlier decision in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1993) 3 SCC 35 (Para. 12) : "Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the nonexistence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbably or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sting debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, then offence under Section 138 would not be made out. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the accused. ..." 14. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent- claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence" (Emphasis supplied) 17. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments would show that the presumption under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable one and the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence. He can either show that the consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. Further, specific defence in this regard may not have to be led by the accused but he can rely on the cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses to rebut the said presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdly, the complainant was unable to tell as to what amount was left with him after he had given the amount of Rs.90,000/- to the accused. Fourthly, in the Income Tax Return of the complainant, there is no reference that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was to be paid by the accused to the complainant and neither was there any balance-sheet attached to the Income Tax Return Ex.C7. Thus, it is apparent that the accused has been able to rebut the presumption of there being a legally enforceable debt. 20. As regards the legal position in an appeal against acquittal and the scope of interference called for by the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M.G. Aggarwal Versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, held as under:- "(16) Section 423 (1) prescribes the powers of the appellate Court in disposing of appeals preferred before it and clauses (a) and (b) deal with appeals against acquittals and appeals against convictions respectively. There is no doubt that the power conferred by clause (a) which deals with an appeal against an order of acquittal is as wide as the power conferred by clause (b) which deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, and so, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the order of acquittal and so, "the findings of the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons": vide Surajpal Singh v. The State 1952-3 SCR 193 at p.201 AIR 1952 SC 52. Similarly in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: AIR 1953 SC 76, it was observed that the interference of the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal would be justified only if there are "very substantial and compelling reasons to do so.' In some other decisions, it has been stated that an order of acquittal can be reversed only for "good and sufficiently cogent reasons" or for "strong reasons". In appreciating the effect of these observations, it must be remembered that these observations were not intended to lay down a rigid or inflexible rule which should govern the decision of the High Court in appeals against acquittals. They were not intended, and should not be read to have intended- to introduce an additional condition in clause (a) of section 423(1) of the Code. All that the said observations are intended to emphasise is that the approach of the High Court in dealing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....weakened by the order of acquittal, and in such cases if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. See Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra (1974(3) SCC 762) and Dharamdeo Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar (1976(1) SCC 610). [Emphasis supplied] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Rajasthan Versus Mohan Lal, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812, held as under:- "5. In view of rival submissions of the parties, we think it proper to consider and clarify the legal position first. Chapter XXIX (Sections 372- 394) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the present Code") deals with appeals. Section 372 expressly declares that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 373 provides for filing of appeals in certain cases. Section 374 allows appeals from convictions. Section 375 bars appeals in cases where the accused pleads guilty. Likewise, no appeal is maintainable in petty cases (Section 376). Section 377 per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Code") which came up for consideration before various High Courts, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as also before this Court. Since in the present appeal, we have been called upon to decide the ambit and scope of the power of an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal, we have confined ourselves to one aspect only i.e. an appeal against an order of acquittal. 8. Bare reading of Section 378 of the present Code (appeal in case of acquittal) quoted above, makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the legislature on the powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. 9. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumpti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh & others, 2010(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 530, held as under:- "6. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P, 2003 (3) SCC 21). The principle to be followed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102, S. Rama VS. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Aruvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445). 13. In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy Council observed as under: (IA p. 404) "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." 14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently been followed by this Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption that he is innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 17. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368, the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that: (SCC p. 374, para 20) "20. ... an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused." 18. In State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271, this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances include: (SCC p. 286, para 28)"(i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; (ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; (iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. 5.3 In the case of Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436, this Court again had an occasion to consider the scope o Section 378 Cr.P.C., 1973 and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. This Court considered catena of decisions of this Court right from 1952 onwards. In paragraph 31, it is observed and held as under: "31. An identical question came to be considered before this Court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai (1978) 1 SCC 228. In the case before this Court, the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. However, the High Court, while reversing the acquittal, did not consider the reasons given by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused. Confirming the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed and held in para 10 as under: (SCC p. 233)"10. Once the appeal was rightly entertained against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and whether the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities; if so to hold that the trial court judgment warranted interference. In such a case, there is obviously no reason why the appellate court's judgment should be disturbed. But if on the other hand the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, it cannot but be held that the interference by the appellate court in the order of acquittal was not justified; then in such a case the judgment of the appellate court has to be set aside as of the two reasonable views, the one in support of the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above discussion, we shall proceed to examine the judgment of the trial court in this case." 31.2. In K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Karala (1999) 3 SCC 309, after observing that though there is some substance in the grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that the High Court has not adverted to all the reasons gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal. If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated. (See in this connection the very cases cited at the Bar, namely, Surajpal Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 52; Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P. AIR 1953 SC 122) In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was not justified in reviewing the entire evidence and coming to its own conclusions. 31.4. In K.Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355, this Court has observed that where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be bro....