Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—Exercise of power to adjudicate a challenge against acquittal bolstered by concurrent findings—Following broad principles can be culled out after a comprehensive analysis of judicial pronouncements :
[Para 31]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Appeal against acquittal—There existed a contradiction in the complaint moved by appellant as against his cross-examination relatable to the time of presentation of cheque by the respondent as per the statements of the appellant—Furthermore, there was no financial capacity or acknowledgement in his ITR by the appellant to the effect of having advanced a loan to the respondent—Even further the appellant has not been able to showcase as to when the said loan was advanced in favour of the respondent nor has he been able to explain as to how a cheque issued by the respondent allegedly in favour of one landed in the hands of instant holder, that is, the appellant—Appellant was able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was of the respondent, a presumption is to ideally arise, however, inability of appellant to put forth the details of loan advanced, and his contradictory statements, would not impact the present case to the effect of giving rise to the statutory presumption under S. 139 of the NI Act—Respondent has been able to shift the weight of scales of justice in his favour through the preponderance of probabilities—Appellant was not able to plead even a valid existence of a legally recoverable debt as the very issuance of cheque is dubious based on the fallacies and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the parties—Fact that respondent had inscribed his signature on the agreement drawn on a while paper and not on a stamp paper as presented by the appellant, creates another set of doubt in the case—Since accused has been able to cast a shadow of doubt on the case presented by appellant, he has further successfully rebutted the presumption stipulated by Section 139 of the Act—Concurrent findings have backing of detailed appraisal of evidences and facts, therefore, do not warrant interference—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 27 to 30 & 32]