Dismissed

K.a.Krishna Pillai v. Sadanandan

Kerala HC2 Apr 2009CRL.A/906/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the cheque was issued to recover a bribe, rendering it an unenforceable debt. The court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of substantial reasons to interfere with the acquittal under established Supreme Court precedents. A lower subject classified as writ-and-

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was affirmed.

K.a.Krishna Pillai Vs Sadanandan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL, 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1931

¶5

CRL.A.No. 906 of 2001(C)

¶6

(AGAINST ORDER IN CC.309/1996 of THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA)

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

-----------------------------------------K.A.KRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEKATTAMPILLIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA EAST .P.O.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

¶12

SADANANDAN, VAZHAVELIL HOUSE, KEERIKODE, THOUDUPUZHA EAST .P.O.

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R1 SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R2.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03//2009, THE COURT ON 02/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶17

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶18

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2009

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C., the complainant, in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act'), preferred this appeal.

¶21

The case of the appellant/complainant is that being a friend of the complainant, the accused borrowed a loan of Rs.42,000/- on 15.6.1996 at his residence promising that the amount will be repaid within 15 days and later on demand, the accused issued a cheque on 1.7.1996 drawn on his account with Karikode Service Co-operative Bank. According to the appellant, when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned on 8.7.1996 on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the account of the drawer. Consequently, he had caused to issue a notice to the accused informing him the dishonour of the cheque and demanding to repay the amount. But in spite of notice, the accused has not paid the amount and hence he approached

¶22

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶23

:-2-:

¶24

the court below by preferring a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act upon which C.C.No.309 of 1996 was instituted. When the accused appeared, the particulars of the offence were read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty which resulted in further trial of the case during which PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 and X1 were marked from the side of the complainant.

¶25

The incriminating circumstances, which emerged during the evidence of the complainant, when put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the same. Besides the above denial, the accused filed a separate statement of defence. In the said statement, the following averments are taken. According to the accused, he is a rubber tapper by profession and his eldest son Sathyan was the Secretary of Sevadal Municipal Mandalam Committee during the year 1995. The said organisation is a sub unit of Congress-I. It is the specific case of the accused that in October, 1995, the complainant along with seven other persons came to the house of the accused in search of Sathyan stating that they have paid huge amount to the then Thodupuzha Block Congress President through Sathyan, the son

¶26

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶27

:-3-:

¶28

of the accused for procuring a job in Idukki District Co-operative Bank. Since the Managing Committee of the said bank got changed, there is no chance for obtaining job as offered and so the amounts were requested to be returned, but no amount was paid back. Hence, a petition was filed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, but there was no fruitful action and therefore, demanded that the accused has to take a decision in the matter. Then, the accused expressed his inability to pay the amount and that no amount was entrusted to him by Sathyan who left the place. On hearing this from the accused, as per the statement, he was then threatened by the complainant and others that they would search out Sathyan, they would do away with Sathyan and they started to come to the house of the accused frequently threatening himself and his wife. Because of this incident and continued threat from the complainant and others, he preferred a petition before the Police, but the Police did not take any action, on the other hand, the Police has also threatened him. Thus, according to the accused, under the above circumstances, apprehending danger to his life, under duress and coercion of the complainant and seven others, a cheque book was obtained from the drawee bank after opening

¶29

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶30

:-4-:

¶31

an account and thereby they forcibly managed to obtain few cheque leaves signed by the accused at the house of Advocate Sri.Saju Paul. Thus, according to the accused, he denied the entire allegation, transaction, consideration etc. and no amount is due from him to the complainant. It is also stated that similar to the present case, two other persons who can be called as job seekers also preferred similar and identical cases against the accused which were pending as C.C.No.76 of 1996 and 161 of 1996 in the same court. It is also stated that at the instance of the job seekers, a press conference was held at Thodupuzha and the matter was reported in the Malayala Manorama daily on 15.10.1995. To substantiate the above case of defence, the accused has tendered the evidence consisting of the testimonies of DWs.1 to 3 and the defence exhibits as Exts.D1 to D11.

¶32

On the basis of the rival pleadings and the evidence and materials on record, the trial court considered four points for its consideration. Finally, it was found that the evidence adduced by the accused and the admission of PW1 are sufficient enough to find that the accused did not receive any amount from PW1 on 15.6.1996 and Ext.P1 cheque was signed by him not in discharge of any liability due from him, but for the amount alleged to be due

¶33

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶34

:-5-:

¶35

from Sathyan, his son. It was also found that the amount alleged to have been received by Sathyan is bribe which is forbidden by law and hence, not a legally recoverable debt and hence Section 138 has no application and therefore, the presumption under Section 139 is not available. Thus, according to the court below, Ext.P1 is proved to have been issued not in discharge of any legally recoverable debt and hence, no offence under Section 138 is made out. Hence, the accused is not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Consequently, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. It is the above finding and order of acquittal challenged in this appeal.

¶36

I have heard Sri.S.K.Muraleedhara Kaimal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Sri.C.K.Vidyasagar and Sri.P.Chandy Joseph, counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.C.M.Nazar for R2.

¶37

When PW1 was examined, he had deposed that at the request of the accused, a sum of Rs.42,000/- was paid on 15.6.1996 on the basis of the assurance given by the accused that the same would be repaid within 15 days. According to PW1, Ext.P1 was brought filled up by the accused to his house

¶38

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶39

:-6-:

¶40

and in his presence, the accused put his signature in Ext.P1. Though in the complaint, no details were given, regarding the entire transaction including the purpose of obtaining the alleged loan, during the chief examination, he had stated that he knows the accused for a long time. It is also stated that the amount was given from his house. PW1, during his chief examination, had deposed that the accused obtained this amount towards the completion of construction of the house of the accused because the house loan which was already sanctioned would be released only on completion of the construction up to the stage of lintel level. But, the trial court, after considering the case put forward by the defence which is supported by the materials, came into a conclusion that the accused did not receive any amount from PW1 on 15.6.1996 and Ext.P1 cheque was signed by him not in discharge of any liability due from him, but for the amount alleged to be due from Sathyan. Thus, the trial court concluded that the amount alleged to have been received by Sathyan, son of the accused is bribe which was forbidden by law and hence not a legally recoverable debt and hence Section 138 has no application and so, the presumption under Section 139 is not available. Thus, it was held that Ext.P1 was proved to have been

¶41

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶42

:-7-:

¶43

issued not in discharge of any legally recoverable debt and hence, no offence under Section 138 was made out.

¶44

Sri.S.K.Muraleedhara Kaimal, learned counsel

¶45

appearing for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued that the finding of the court below that the complainant is not entitled to get presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act is absolutely incorrect and illegal. In support of the above submission, it is pointed out that PW1/the complainant, apart from his pleading in the complaint, deposed before the court in specific terms that the accused demanded loan from the complainant towards the completion of the construction of the house of the accused and the loan was given on further condition that it would be repaid within fifteen days. It is also pointed out that PW1 had categorically stated that the accused received the amount from the house of the complainant and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused came to the house with filled up cheque for the above amount and the accused put his signature in Ext.P1 cheque in the presence of the complainant and thereafter, handed over the same to him. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the complainant has established the financial liability and debt which is legally enforceable, due to the complainant and

¶46

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶47

:-8-:

¶48

towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused executed Ext.P1 cheque and issued the same to the complainant and in the light of the above proved facts, the complainant is entitled to get a statutory presumption as envisaged under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. According to the learned counsel, the trial court has miserably failed to understand by way of distinguishing the two transactions that were claimed by the complainant and also averred by the defence. Learned counsel submits that the complainant is in no way interested with the transaction put forward by the defence and the complainant was not a job seeker so as to enter into any transaction with the son of the accused. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that as admitted by the complainant, the transaction of the son of the complainant is with one Raju and not with Sathyan, the son of the accused. According to the learned counsel, the proved facts would show that the transaction claimed by the complainant is distinct and a separate one and therefore, the defence set up by the accused has no relevance in the prosecution launched at the instance of the complainant. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that nothing was mentioned in Ext.D8 order in Crl.M.P.No.486 of 1996 of Sessions Court, Thodupuzha against the complainant. Thus,

¶49

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶50

:-9-:

¶51

according to the learned counsel, the transaction put forward by the defence is entirely a different one and the complainant is in no way connected, affected or interested with the same and therefore, the approach of the court below admitting the case of the defence as true and on the basis of such evidence, the finding against the complainant is absolutely incorrect, illegal and liable to be interfered with.

¶52

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the specific case of the defence has been raised firstly through Ext.P7 reply notice and subsequently, through the cross examination of PW1, in addition to the plea set up through the averments in Section 313 statement. Inviting the evidence and materials on record, the learned counsel vehemently submitted that during the pendency of the present case, there were two more cases pending against the accused in the same court and in those two cases, the averments and claims are identical to that of in the present case. According to the learned counsel, the accused is a poor painter and he had no such transaction as claimed by the complainant in the present case and also by the complainants in two other cases mentioned above. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P1 is one of the

¶53

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶54

:-10-:

¶55

cheque leaves forcibly obtained by the job seekers who had transaction with the son of the accused ad as such, the accused has no direct transaction on any account with the complainant. Learned counsel pointed out that Ext.D1 newspaper report dated 15.10.1995 would give the information regarding the cheating committed by the persons including the son of the accused to the job seekers and they had filed a complaint before the Police. In Ext.D1 which is a contemporaneous document, the name of the persons who had given the complaint before the Police had been mentioned wherein the name of the appellant is figured as one of the complainants mentioned in the paper report. In the said report, the details of the cheating were given. It is the further case of the learned counsel that during the month of October,1995, the appellant/complainant along with seven others came to the house of the accused and forcibly obtained the cheque leaves pertaining to an account opened at the instance of the complainant and others in the Karikode Service Co-operative Bank. Learned counsel pointed out that the number of Ext.P1 cheque is “032732”. It is also pointed out that C.C.No.76 of 1996 as evidenced by Ext.D2 is the complaint preferred by one

¶56

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶57

:-11-:

¶58

Jose John where the cheque is covered for an amount of

¶59

Rs.35,000/- and there the cheque number is “032733”. Then the learned counsel invited my attention to Ext.D5 pertaining to C.C.No.161 of 1996 of the same court where the complainant is one P.M.George and there, the cheque amount is Rs.40,000/-

¶60

and the cheque number is “032731”. The name of the complainant in those cases were also appeared along with the name of the appellant herein in Ext.D1 newspaper report dated 15.10.1995. Based upon the above facts, learned counsel submits that the cheque in question was forcibly obtained by the complainant connected with the case of alleged cheating for which the son of the accused was one of the parties. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the defence has succeeded in fully establishing the case supported by concrete materials and evidence that the cheque in question was obtained forcibly towards the repayment of the amount alleged to have received by Sathyan as bribe for securing employment and thus, the bribe is forbidden by law and the same cannot be termed as legally recoverable debt and therefore, the finding of the court below is absolutely correct and legal and no interference is called for.

¶61

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶62

:-12-:

¶63

I have considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and also repeatedly perused the evidence and materials on record. As per

¶64

the averments in the complaint, the only case of the appellant/complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 10.2.1996 with a promise that the accused would repay the amount within 15 days. It is claimed that the accused is a friend of the complainant residing in the above address. Besides the above bare statement, no averments with particulars are taken in the complaint and no details are given which led to the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque. During the trial also, besides the interested version of PW1, no other witness was examined and no document other than connected with the dishonour of the cheque was produced. But, when PW1 was examined, he deposed before the court below that the complainant has got acquaintance with the accused for years and also further deposed to the effect that the amount was given to the accused from his house and the accused borrowed this amount for the purpose of balance construction of the house of the accused because the house loan, which has already been sanctioned, will not be released unless on completion of the construction of the

¶65

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶66

:-13-:

¶67

house at the stage of lintel level. All these statements are deposed as evidence in support of the pleadings which are not taken in the complaint. If that be so, the said evidence of PW1 has to be excluded from the purview of scrutiny and appreciation of the court while assessing whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused. On such approach, it can be seen that the complainant has miserably failed in taking proper pleading in the complaint with respect to the transaction which led to the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque. No supporting evidence or independent evidence is adduced to prove the transaction and execution of issuance of the cheque.

¶68

The absence of proper pleading in the complaint and the substantial improvements or exaggerated version which is given by PW1 during his examination, which is supposed to be adduced as evidence to substantiate the prosecution case against the accused, are relevant especially in the light of the defence taken by the accused.

¶69

The case of the defence is firstly put forward through Ext.P7 reply notice. Therefore, the complainant was aware of the possible defence likely to be taken by the accused in case a prosecution is launched against him. But, in spite of such prior

¶70

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶71

:-14-:

¶72

knowledge and awareness of the possible defence, the complainant deliberately suppressed and ignored all the facts which are brought to the notice of the complainant through Ext.P7 reply notice, in the complaint. There is not even a whisper in the complaint regarding the facts related to the cheating alleged to have committed by the son of the accused and also the fact that the son of the complainant was a job seeker who was also cheated through such alleged offence. But, PW1 deposed and admitted through his deposition that

¶73

“..................... എന� മകന അന�ലക�മ�റ�ന� District Cooperative Bank-ല ജ��ല� നക�ട �ക�നമന� പറഞ� Congress പപവര�കന�യ ഒര� ര�� 35,000/- ര പ� 1994- ല വ�ങ�യ�ര�ന�. ആ പണ$ അന�ല�ന� വസ�& � കടന'ട�� ട�യ�ന ഉണ�ക�യ&�ണ�. ട�യ�ന� ആ ജ��ല� ക�ട�യ�ല. പണവ�$ &�ര�നക ക�ട�യ�ട�മ�ല. ................”

¶74

Regarding those admissions, there is not even a whisper in the complaint. PW1 was constrained to admit the said fact because of the other attendant circumstances.

¶75

Further, the defence has succeeded in establishing the defence case and thereby disproved the case of the complainant. Ext.D1 is a paper report regarding the alleged cheating in which the son of the accused was one of the parties. Ext.P1 is a contemporaneous document in which the name of

¶76

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶77

:-15-:

¶78

the complainant is shown as the second person who were subjected to cheating. DW1 is the local correspondent of Malayala Manorama cited and examined to prove Ext.D1. DW2 is an Advocate of the Thoudupuzha bar. DW2 was cited to prove as to how EXt.P1 cheque was reached in the hands of the complainant. According to the defence, the blank cheques were got signed at the mediation of PW2, but he denied the same. But, fact would show that Sathyan, Congress worker obtained bribe from several persons connected with the alleged cheating and left place two three years ago and the crime alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is pending against one Raju and Sathyan before the trial court. Ext.D6 is the F.I.R. based upon Ext.D7 F.I.statement given by one of the job seekers who is the complainant in Ext.D4 case. In Ext.D7, it is stated that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was given to one P.K.Raju on the undertaking of himself and the said Sathyan and the Ward President to obtain job for his son and similarly eight other persons including PW1 paid amount to those persons. Thus, the said Raju is one of the accused in Ext.D6 F.I.R. Another two documents produced by the defence to substantiate its case are Exts.D9 and D10. Ext.D9 is a notice dated 7.11.1996

¶79

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶80

:-16-:

¶81

issued by the complainant in Ext.D4 case who is another job seeker whose name appeared in Ext.D1 paper report. The said complaint was filed before the Chief Minister against the cheating, which in turn sent to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies for enquiry. It is pertinent to note that in that complaint (EXt.D9), the accused/ counter petitioners are the above mentioned Raju, Sathyan (son of the accused in this case), C.P.Mathew, the present accused and another man. Ext.D10 is the reply sent by the accused to the said notice wherein the defence or reply is the same as that is taken by the accused in the present case. Thus, according to the accused in the present case, the son of the accused- Sathyan along with other accused had actively participated in receiving bribe from various persons including PW1 during the year 1994. Regarding the cheque in question, the explanation offered and established by the defence evidence is to the effect that on the mediation of DW2, one of the cheques got signed in the name of PW1 and the amount therein was subsequently incorporated as Rs.42,000/- in spite of Rs.35,000/- shown in Ext.D1 which is alleged to have been given to Sathyan and Raju as bribe. During the cross examination of PW1, it is brought out on record that he is a tailor by profession

¶82

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶83

:-17-:

¶84

and he had disposed of his property during the year 1991 connected with the heart operation and also he sold the rubber wood during the year 1993 and thereafter, he was living depending upon his son Anil Kumar who is an autorickshaw driver by profession. Thus, according to the trial court, the complainant was not having sufficient means to give a substantial good amount of Rs.42,000/- as loan to the accused during the year 1996.

¶85

Learned counsel for the first respondent/accused submits that by adducing the evidence, the accused has established that PW1 is a victim of cheating at the hands of the persons mentioned above including the son of the accused during the year 1994 and therefore, it cannot be believed the version of PW1 that during the year 1996, he had again parted with a sum of Rs.42,000/- to the accused who is the father of Sathyan who cheated PW1 and his son especially when PW1 has no means to raise such fund. Learned counsel also pointed out that two more cases were pending against the accused in the very same court. C.C.No.76 of 1996 is instituted upon a private complaint filed by one Jose John for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the very same accused wherein Ext.D2

¶86

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶87

:-18-:

¶88

cheque is for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. Similarly, C.C.No.161 of 1996 is another complaint preferred by one P.M.George, based upon Ext.D5 cheque for an amount of Rs.40,000/- was issued. The names of the complainants in both the above cases were already appeared in Ext.D1 paper report describing them as job seekers. Learned counsel submits that from the above fact, it appears that the accused is a person frequently borrowing amount from persons like the complainant herein/ appellant and the same would be sufficient to show the falsity of the present case as he, being a painter, had no such capacity . In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the number of Ext.D5 cheque in C.C.No.161 of 1996 is “032731”. The cheque number in Ext.D2 cheque in C.C.No.76 of 1996 is “032733”. In the present case, the cheque number is “032732”. All these three cheques are that of the Karikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Karikode Branch. Thus, on a perusal of these three cheque leaves, it can be seen that the cheque leaf number of the cheque in the present case will come between the numbers of the other two cheque leaves. In this juncture, it is apposite to consider the defence plea as it is relevant. According to the accused, the job seekers

¶89

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶90

:-19-:

¶91

including the complainant during the year 1996 came to the house of the accused and forcibly, obtained the signed cheque leaves from the accused. From the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the accused has succeeded in establishing his case beyond doubt and as such, disproved the case of the complainant. I have already found that the complainant has miserably failed in taking proper pleading in the complaint with respect to the claimed transaction which led to the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque and no independent evidence is adduced to prove the transaction. It is also found that there is absence of proper pleading on the part of the complainant especially, when he was aware of the plausible defence from the side of the accused. If that be so, the contention of counsel for the appellant that the appellant/complainant is entitled to get the benefit of presumption under Section 139 cannot be accepted. The Apex Court in the decision reported in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya Hegde [2008(1) KLT 425 (SC)] has held that existence of a legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act and it does not raise a presumption in regard to the existence of a debt also. On the basis of the evidence on record and the facts and

¶92

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶93

:-20-:

¶94

circumstances involved in the case, the trial court has held that the amount alleged to have been raised by Sathyan is a bribe which is forbidden by law and hence not a legally recoverable debt and hence Section 138 of the N.I.Act has no application and so the presumption under Section 139 is not available. The above finding of the court below is absolutely correct, especially when the complainant himself has admitted the transaction.

¶95

Fraud was played on the son of the complainant by one Raju connected with the job in the Idukki District Cooperative Bank. The evidence adduced by the defence would further show that the son of the accused and the said Raju and other persons are accused in criminal cases connected with the same transaction. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and the claim of the appellant that the said transaction was nothing to do with the present transaction cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. Therefore, it can be seen that no legally enforceable debt was due from the accused towards the complainant so as to attract Section 138 of the N.I.Act. On the other hand, the cheque in question was obtained towards the amount alleged to have been received by the son of the accused as bribe and the amount due, if any, out of a

¶96

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶97

:-21-:

¶98

forbidden transaction cannot be treated as a debt enforceable by law. Even otherwise, going by the materials and evidence adduced by the accused and the falsity of the case of the complainant which is manifest from the absence of proper pleading in the complaint and the exaggerated or unacceptable evidence tendered in support of a non-raised pleading, it can be seen that the defence has succeeded in making out a strong and probable case and successfully discharged his burden in rebutting the presumption even if such presumption is available in favour of the complainant. In the decision reported in M/s.Kumar

¶99

Exports v. M/s.Sharma Carpets [2009(1) Supreme 231], the Apex Court has held that 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. It is further held in the said decision that once such

¶100

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶101

:-22-:

¶102

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. The Apex Court in the Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (cited supra) held that the accused for discharging the burden of proof raised upon him under a statute need not examine himself and he may discharge burden on the basis of materials brought on record. In the above decision, the Apex Court had also held that where chances of false implication could not be ruled out, background fact and conduct of parties together with their legal requirements were required to be taken into account. It is also held that whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities'. On application of the above dictum in the present case, it can be safely concluded that even though no burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption, he had succeeded in making out a strong probable case and therefore, the burden is shifted back to the complainant and it

¶103

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶104

:-23-:

¶105

was for the complainant to establish his case within the ambit of Section 138 of the N.I.Act, but he miserably failed.

¶106

In the decision reported in Ghurey Lal v. State of

¶107

U.P. [2008(4) KLT SN 17 (C.No.17) SC] , the Supreme Court laid down certain circumstances under which the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. In the above decision, the Apex Court has categorically held that appellate court can interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons with an order of acquittal. Reiterating the same position, the Apex Court has held in Batcu Venkateshwarlu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [2009(1) Supreme 67] that in the case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong and then only, the appellate court can, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. On examining the facts and circumstances involved in the case in the light of the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.

¶108

Crl.A.No. 906 of 2001

¶109

:-24-:

¶110

In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶111

2^nd April, 2009

¶112

V.K.Mohanan, Judge

¶113

MBS/