IMPORTANT POINT
Court would not interfere with judgment of acquittal, which reinforces presumption of innocence of accused, when not shown that impugned judgment suffers from perversity or patent misdirection in appreciation of evidence.

Vipin Sanghi, J.—The present leave petition has been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr PC to seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13.01.2015 passed by Sh. Jagmohan Singh, MM (NI Act)-03 Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CC No.6485/2014, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act).

2. The case of the petitioner/complainant in his complainant was that he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs.23,70,000/- to the accused in the month of June-July 2008. The accused had undertaken to repay the same before January 2009. In discharge of his liability towards the complainant, the accused issued two post dated cheques, one dated 21.08.2008 for Rs.11,60,000/- and the other dated 10.01.2009 for Rs.12 lacs drawn on his bank.

3. The accused then requested the complainant not to present the cheque on the due dates. When the first cheque was presented for payment, it was received unpaid on account of “insufficient funds” vide memo dated 03.01.2009. Thereafter, the second cheque was presented for encashment, which too was returned on 10.01.2009 with the remark “payment stopped by drawer”. Consequently, the petitioner issued the legal notice dated 23.01.2009, and the payment not having made within the statutory period, the compliant was preferred.

4. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on 30.09.2009. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused moved an application to cross-examine the complainant CW-1. The complainant was cross-examined and the complainants evidence closed on 14.10.2011. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr PC was recorded on 11.11.2011. The accused led the evidence of one DW-Prateek Sharma. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent/ accused on scrutiny and appreciation of several documents/exhibits led in evidence by the accused.

5. The case of the accused was that he had taken loans from the complainant in March-April 2008; which were repaid in August 2008; he again took loans in two installments after 2-3 months of settlement of the previous loan; he paid back the said amount after 1 ½ months of taking the same; the transaction took place as per the documents filed by him (Mark XX, YY, ZZ and DW1/A); the complainant took the cheques in question, in advance, before advancing the above said loans; the cheques were signed and filled up in the handwriting of the accused, including the name of the payee, date and amount in words and figures and were signed by him. The accused denied having requested the complainant for a loan of Rs.23,70,000/- in the month of June-July 2008, or that he undertook to pay the same before January 2009.

6. The learned Magistrate held that the accused had been able to rebut the statutory presumption by raising a probable defence. The discussion found in the impugned judgment reads as follows:

“9. The documents mark XX, YY, ZZ and Ex.DW1/A referred to by the accused in his above statement were produced during cross examination of the complainant/CW1 and he was confronted with them. The above documents are very crucial to understand the nature of transactions between the accused and the complainant. During his cross examination on 31.03.2011, complainant stated that he had not executed anything in writing towards the amount advanced and its payment. However, the accused obtained his signatures on blank paper on the ground that he was going to make (re)payment but despite obtaining his signatures on that paper he did not make (re)payment of the loan amount. The complainant admitted his signature on document Ex.DW1/A but stated that it was blank at the time of obtaining his signature. The filing of above document was also objected to by Ld counsel for the complainant on the ground that the same was a colour photocopy. However, when cross examination of the complainant resumed on 14.10.2011, the original agreement was also filed on record and was also Ex.D