Case Note & Summary
The complainant-appellant, Sharanappa, filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 06.01.2017 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Vijayapura in Criminal Case No.2378/2013. The appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent-accused, Mohammad Ali, had borrowed Rs. 1,00,000 from him and issued a cheque dated 10.06.2013 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Vijayapura, which was dishonoured on presentation with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Despite a legal notice, the accused failed to pay the amount. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, upheld the acquittal. The court observed that the complainant's evidence was inconsistent regarding the source of funds and the purpose of the loan. The accused denied the loan and successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing that the complainant's case was not credible. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted in an appeal against acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 1,00,000 and issued a cheque which was dishonoured. The trial court acquitted the accused holding that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by showing that the loan was not advanced as claimed. (Paras 2-10) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Presumption under Section 139 - Rebuttal - The presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt is rebuttable. The accused can rebut it by raising a probable defence. In this case, the accused denied the loan and pointed out discrepancies in the complainant's case, which shifted the burden back to the complainant. The trial court's finding that the debt was not proved was based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 5-9) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378(4) - Scope - In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and the acquittal was justified. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable
- burden on accused to prove defence on preponderance of probabilities
- existence of legally enforceable debt must be proved by complainant
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
