The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of a respondent in a cheque dishonour case. The court held the Trial Court's finding that the cheque number exceeded outstanding dues was sound and called for no interference.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; leave to file appeal denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1 -
Crl. Misc. No. A-108-MA of 2014
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-108-MA of 2014 Date of Decision: 13.10.2014.
Hari Krishan
......Applicant
Versus
Rajinder Singh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. K.R.Dhawan, Advocate for the applicant.
SABINA, J.
Respondent had faced the trial in a complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua dishonour of cheque dated 27.3.2006 in the sum of ` 1,41,247/-.
Case of the applicant, in brief, is that on 5.2.2003, respondent took loan in the sum of 1,50,000/- from him. In this regard, an agreement was executed between the parties and respondent had agreed to repay the loan amount in 30 monthly installments of 8375/- per month with effect from 5.3.2003. On 27.3.2006, respondent issued the cheque in question in favour of the applicant qua repayment of the loan. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with remarks 'insufficient funds'.
In order to prove his case, applicant led his evidence. Trial Court vide judgment dated 2.9.2013 dismissed the complaint filed by the applicant. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leave to
GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
-2 -
Crl. Misc. No. A-108-MA of 2014
appeal by the complainant-applicant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
The Trial Court while dismissing the complaint has noticed that admittedly applicant had advanced loan to the tune of 1,50,000/- to the respondent on 5.2.2003. Agreement Ex. C-1 in this regard, was executed between the parties. Respondent had agreed to repay the loan amount in 30 equal installments to the tune of 8375/- per month. It has been further noticed by the Trial Court that the applicant continued receiving the monthly installments and from the statement of account, it was evident that the respondent had paid 1,53,385/- to the applicant as on 9.3.2005. It has further been noticed by the Trial Court that as per Ex. C-7, 97,865/- was outstanding against the respondent as on 9.3.2005. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to have issued the cheque in the sum of ` 1,41,247/-. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that it was possible that the blank signed cheque, given by the respondent to the applicant, might have been mis-utilized. Learned Trial Court has further noticed that although, the cheque in question was presented to the bank within the statutory period but it was not established from the record that the same had been issued by the respondent in discharge of legal liability.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reasons given by the Trial Court while dismissing the complaint, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by
GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-108-MA of 2014 -3 -
the Trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court.
Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.
Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:
“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”
To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the
Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.
Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479 , the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order,
GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-108-MA of 2014
-4 -
interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the
GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
-5 -
Crl. Misc. No. A-108-MA of 2014
evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed”
No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
October 13, 2014 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be granted under Section 378(4) CrPC in a cheque dishonour case where the Trial Court concluded the cheque was misutilized.
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint for insufficient funds due to lack of discharge of legal liability.
Whether interference is warranted in an appeal against acquittal merely because a different view of evidence is possible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of GujaratFollowed¶27
Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748
State of Punjab v. Hansa SinghFollowed¶29
State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775
Ashok Kumar v. State of RajasthanExplained¶29
Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166 · Who else cites this
State of Goa v. Sanjay ThakranFollowed¶31
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaFollowed¶31
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraFollowed¶33
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hari Krishan
Rajinder Singh
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
