Apellate court shouldn’t overturn acquittal by trial court if findings correct in cheque dishonour case: HC

Listening to the plea filed by one Raj Kumar Chahar for depart to attraction towards an order handed by Judicial Justice of the Peace First Class, Charkhi Dadri on January 22, 2020 whereby the accused-respondent (Shiv Kumar) had been acquitted of the fees below Part 138 of the Negotiable Devices Act, 1881, a bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has dismissed the matter.

As per Chahar, Shiv Kumar had issued him a cheque of Rs 3.50 lakh on December 1, 2015 towards an analogous quantity that the latter had borrowed from him earlier. When Chahar offered the cheque on the financial institution, it was dishonoured with the remarks “inadequate funds”. After a authorized discover, a case below part 138 of NI Act was filed within the court docket of the judicial Justice of the Peace, which got here to the conclusion that there was no proof to recommend that the complainant had superior a sum of Rs 3.50 lakh to the accused. It was additionally held by the trial court docket that the complainant himself had admitted in his cross-examination that accused Shiv Kumar used to buy tyres from him and that the mentioned cheque had been given to the complainant as safety. The complainant additionally admitted in his cross-examination that every one the transactions entered into between him and one other individuals had been recorded in a selected register however the identical was not produced as proof. Based mostly on the conclusion, Shiv Kumar was acquitted.

Nonetheless, Chahar moved HC for submitting an attraction towards the JMIC order, arguing {that a} safety cheque can be a cheque throughout the which means of Part 138 of the NI Act.

Justice Bedi, after listening to the matter, held, “The trial court docket has referred to the cross-examination of the complainant, whereby, it’s talked about that every one his transactions had been recorded in a selected register, which nonetheless, had not been produced by the complainant… the non-production of the register together with the opposite elements proved to be deadly to the case of the complainant resulting in the acquittal of the accused.”

On Chahar’s rivalry that when the execution of the cheque was admitted, then there was no requirement to show by means of any writing or producing account books that the accused owed a authorized debt to the complainant, Justice Bedi, citing the judgment of Supreme Courtroom in Rohit Bhai’s case (supra), held that when the execution of the cheque is admitted, the supply of funds out there with the complainant will not be required to be proved by him.

“Within the current case, information are barely totally different…the very best proof out there with the complainant was not produced by him, which led to an opposed inference being drawn towards him,” mentioned Justice Bedi.

Additional citing different Supreme Courtroom and Excessive Courtroom verdicts, Justice Bedi mentioned, “…whereas an appellate court docket has full energy to overview, re-appreciate and rethink the proof upon which the order of acquittal is based, it’s equally true that there’s a double presumption in favour of the innocence of the accused, firstly on account of the presumption of innocence out there to an accused and secondly on account of the truth that the competent court docket has acquitted the accused and due to this fact, if two affordable conclusions had been potential on the idea of the proof on document, the appellate court docket mustn’t disturb the discovering of acquittal recorded by the trial court docket, merely, as a result of the appellate court docket might have arrived at a distinct conclusion than that of the trial court docket. Nonetheless, the place the judgment appealed towards is completely perverse and the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding related materials or by making an allowance for irrelevant or inadmissible materials, then the appellate court docket can be properly inside its powers to intrude with the mentioned findings and set them apart.”