Brought to you by: Integrated Web Services Pvt. Ltd.
1. Respondent had faced trial in a complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 with regard to dishonour of cheque dated 9.4.2009 in the sum of Rs. 1 80 000/-. Respondent was acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 17.5.2016. Hence the present application for leave to appeal by the complainant2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record available on the record carefully.3. Case of the applicant was that she had given Rs. 1 80 000/- to the respondent by way of loan. In order to repay the loan respondent had issued a cheque in her favour on 9.4.2009. However when the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured by the bank.4. The trial court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent has held that as per the applicant she had given the loan to the respondent about 7 years ago after he had met her in her house for 15-20 minutes. Further the applicant had failed to identify the respondent. It has been further noticed by the trial court that respondent and son of the applicant were having business dealings and it was possible that the cheque in question had been mis-utilised by the son of the applicant. The fact that son of the applicant and the respondent were having business dealings was admitted by the applicant in her cross-examination.5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the reasons given by the trial court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent are sound reasons and call for no interference.6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748 has held that where in a case two views are possible the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.7. Similarly in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479 the Hon'ble 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 s 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.8. Hence no ground for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Dismissed.Leave To Appeal Refused.