The court emphasized the need to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt and the importance of consistency and credibility of evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Vipin Sanghi, J. (Oral):--

1. The present leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr PC in respect of the judgment dated 03.12.2013 passed by Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, NI ACT 02/South, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 827/2010 in Pradeep Kumar Verma v. Aparna Mehra, by which 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 was that he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 2,24,800/- in cash to the accused. The cheque in question bearing No. 383933 dated 24.08.2005 drawn on HDFC Bank had been issued by the accused for the said amount of Rs. 2,24,800/- in discharge of her said legal liability. The said cheque had been dishonoured upon presentation with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. After service of statutory legal notice, and lapse of time for making payment – during which period no payment was made, the complaint had been preferred.

3. The respondent/accused had pleaded not guilty and sought trial. The petitioner examined himself as CW-1 and proved several documents as Ex. CW-1/A to CW-1/E. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr PC, when all the incriminating circumstances were put to her. She stated that she had given two cheques to one Sh. Rahul Gambhir as security for obtaining a car loan which was never disbursed. Sh. Rahul Gambhir, probably, gave these two cheques to the complainant. She stated that she had no concern with the complainant and that she had no liability to make payment to the complainant. She claimed that the complainant had misused the cheques that she had given to Rahul Gambhir. She claimed that the case filed against her was false.

4. Thus, the accused admitted her signatures on the cheques Ex. CW-1/A and that the same had been dishonoured upon presentation. The Trial Court, therefore, drew the presumption under Section 139 of the Act against the accused that the said cheque had been issued in discharge of a legal debt.

5. The accused examined four witnesses, namely, Sh. Nishant Mehra, DW-1 – her husband; herself as DW-2; Sh. Rahul Gambhir, the common friend of the parties as DW-3, and; Sh. Varun Yadav, Sr. Manager, Axis Bank as DW-4. All of them were cross examined by the complainant.

6. The reasoning found in the impugned judgment is as follows:

“14. Having heard the arguments advanced by both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant in his complaint as well as evidenciery affidavit only stated that the loan was advanced to the accused as she needed some financial help. The same has been changed in the cross examination and it is stated that the amount was required by the accused for repayment of loan. The accused has tried to refute the said allegations by producing the bank statement as well as salary slip of her husband which shows that the laon amount was regularly paid from the salary of the husband of the accused.

15. The loan was taken by the husband of the accused in the year September, 2004 and the alleged loan was given by the complainant to the accused as stated in cross examination February, 2005. The bank statement of the husband of the accused would show regularly amount was being deducted from the salary account, therefore, they would not require any other loan in between.

16. To my mind if actually a further loan for repayment of the bank loan was required, it should have been taken either in the beginning of the instalments of the repayment of loan i.e September, 2004 or towards the completion of loan instalments when actually the deficit amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- approximately was to be paid.

17. It is not the case of the complainant that loan from the bank was to be repaid in lumpsum, rather it was being paid in instalments, therefore, the need of money could not have arisen in between.

18. The argument of the complainant’s counsel that the first cheque of the instalment was dish