Ram Kumar vs Sangeeta

Sabina, J.—Respondent had faced trial in a complaint filed by the applicant u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua dishonour of cheque dated 07.02.2012 in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Trial Court vide judgment dated 04.06.2013 has ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the application u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") for leave to file an appeal by the complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

Trial Court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent vide order dated 04.06.2013, has held that daughter of the applicant is married to the brother of the respondent. F.I.R. under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered against the respondent and her family members at the instance of the daughter of the applicant. Applicant had been unable to produce any document qua friendly loan given by him to the respondent.

Case of the applicant was that he had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from Ram Kishan and Rs. 2,00,000/- had been arranged by him by sale of buffalo. However, the applicant had failed to examine Ram Kishan to corroborate his version qua receipt of loan from him nor had shown any document with regard to receipt of money on account of sale of buffalo. The Trial Court has also noticed that the income of the applicant was shown as Rs. 12,000/- per month, as per Exhibit D-2. Applicant had given the loan amount to the respondent on 04.08.2010 at his (applicant)

house. However, from Exhibit D-5, it was evident that respondent had remained present in her office at New Delhi on 04.08.2010 from 9.20 a.m. to 7.57 p.m. Hence, learned Trial Court rightly held that the version of the applicant that he had given the loan amount to the respondent on 04.08.2010 was belied. Moreover, matrimonial litigation is pending between the parties.

In these circumstances, the reasons given by the Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the respondents are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial court.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, 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 Vs. Hansa Singh 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

Vs. State of Rajasthan, 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 Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another, and in Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka,

Similarly, in Mrinal Das and Others Vs. The State of Tripura, , 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, 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 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.

Hence, no ground for leave to file an appeal u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. is made out. Dismissed.