Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 841 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - acquittal of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I Act - HELD THAT:- The scope of interference in an appeal against Acquittal has been gone into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JASWANT SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [2000 (4) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was observed While sitting in Judgment over an acquittal, the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative, the order of Acquittal is not to be disturbed. In light of well-settled legal principles, the burden lies on the accused to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances, which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration. If the accused discharges the onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful and the execution of the promissory note, the onus would be shifted to the complainant. Then he will be obliged to prove the existence of the consideration. The available evidence clearly indicates that the accused had no compelling need to borrow the specified amount, considering that they possessed Rs. 7,00,000/- in their bank account at the time of the Exs. P1 and P2 promissory note transactions. The complainant has not provided a satisfactory explanation or demonstrated the source of her income that would enable her to lend such a substantial sum to the accused. The accused have presented substantial evidence before the Court, and based on this, the complainant's assertion that they issued a cheque on 03.02.2013 is proven to be inaccurate. The evidence adduced supports the view that the accused's version is more likely and credible in this context - It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal, if another view is possible, then also the appellate Court cannot substitute its view by reversing the Acquittal into conviction unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. In the instant case, the appellant has yet to be able to point out how the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. The trial Court's conclusion was found to be erroneous, and the appellate Court’s Judgment aligns with the settled legal position. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant.
|