Complainant sought revision against trial court's acquittal in a case involving a dishonoured cheque and alleged cheating. The High Court found no error of law or fact in the acquittal, citing Supreme Court parameters for interference with acquittals, and dismissed the petition.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:22072]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 609/2004
Manchha Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram, aged 61 years, by caste Ghanchi, R/o main Market, Sumerpur, District Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Rakesh Arora |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Mukesh Trivedi, PP |
| Mr. | PradeepShah |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/05/2024
The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 13.07.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur in Criminal Case No. 292/1993 whereby, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent no.1 from offence under Section 420 and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a written report before the Police Station Sumerpur stating therein that he is doing business int hename and style of “Firm Vimal Kumar Manchha Ram” at New Krashi Mandi, Sumerpur as general merchant and commission agent. It was llaeged that the respondent no.1 had purchased 58 gunny bags of mustard vide bill No. 379 for Rs. 49,643.23 in the name of his company Arvind
[2024:RJ-JD:22072]
[CRLR-609/2004]
(2 of 5)
Trading Company. The respondent no.1 gave a cheque drawn in favour of “Self” of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur No. 0640025 for a sum of Rs. 45,545/-. The petitioner delivered the goods on same day. However, when the cheque was presented before the Bank the same was dishonoured with remark “insufficient funds”. Thus, it was stated that the respondent no.1 had cheated the petitioner with a view to dishonestly induce delivery of the goods. Upon demanding the amount of cheque, the respondent no.1 refused to make the payment.
On the basis of said report, FIR was registered and investigation commenced. The police after due investigation, filed challan against the respondent no.1. On the same day, the learned trial court took cognizance against the respondent no.1 for offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Thereafter, charges of the case were framed for aforesaid offences. The accused respondent no.1 denied the charges and claimed trial.
The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, who did not produce any witness in his defence.
The petitioner had filed separate complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act in which also, the trial court took cognizance and charges were framed against the respondent no.1. Both these cases were clubbed together by the trial court.
After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.1 from offence under Section 420 IPC and Section
[2024:RJ-JD:22072]
[CRLR-609/2004]
(3 of 5)
138 of N.I. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondent no.1. It is submitted that the complainant had specifically alleged that the respondent accused with an intention of cheating and dishonestly induce delivery of goods, gave a cheque knowing well that there was insufficient fund in his account which is sufficient to drawn an inference against the respondent no.1. However, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.1 on the ground that in the statement of prosecution witnesses there is no specific allegation with regard to cheating and dishonest inducing of property. It is further argued that it is not in dispute that the cheque was returned with remark “insuffucient funds”. However, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.1 only on the ground of tehnical lacuna in the notice. It is argued that the fact of giving the cheque knowing well that there is no sufficient fund in the account is enough to drawn an inference against the respondent no.1. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing fresh order.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned courts below, it appears that the accused respondent no.1 has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent no.1 for offence under
[2024:RJ-JD:22072]
[CRLR-609/2004]
(4 of 5)
Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of N.I. Act. It has been observed that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 138 N.I. Act and further the prosecution also failed to prove that the respondent no.1 had dishonestly induced and deceived the petitioner to deliver property to respondent no.1 by way of adducing cogent evidence. The court below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent no.1 beyond reasonable doubt.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“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 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:22072]
[CRLR-609/2004]
(5 of 5)
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--
“A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.”
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
17-BJSH/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act was liable to be interfered with in revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraRelied on¶35
2011(9) SCC 479 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu DuttaRelied on¶40
(2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Manchha Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram
Pukhraj S/o Ramaji
State of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
