Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—Scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited—Unless the High Court found that the appreciation of the evidence is perverse, it could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
[Para 21]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sections 138 & 139—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption—Financial capacity of complainant to advance loan—Acquittal by trial court reversed by High Court—Appeal—Standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities—Certified copies of the ITRs established that complainant had not declared that he had lent rupees three lakh to the accused—Agricultural income also was not declared in the ITR—Failure of complaint to produce promissory notes—Whether the complainant had lent an amount of rupees three lakhs to the accused is highly doubtful—Defence raised by appellant satisfies the standard of “preponderance of probability”—High Court was not justified in reversing the order of acquittal of appellant—Impugned judgment of High Court is set aside and that of trial court is confirmed—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 20, 25 & 27]
Civil Procedure
Suit for recovery of money decreed by High Court—Appeal—Plea that suit ought to have been dismissed on the basis of acquittal in criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act—Plaintiff proved the promissory notes in the recovery suit—Standard of proof in criminal proceedings differs with that in civil proceedings—Adjudication in civil matters is based on preponderance of probabilities whereas adjudication in criminal cases is based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent and guilt of accused should be proved to the hilt and the proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt—High Court, on the basis of evidence on record, relying on the preponderance of probability, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had financial ability to lend the amount and best evidence available with defendants—Principle of adverse inference attracted—High Court rightly decreed the suit but in the facts and circumstances of case, the decree needs to be modified restricting it to the amount already deposited by appellants in both the proceedings with interest accrued thereon—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 28 to 30]