In Section 138 NI Act acquittal appeal, interference only if trial court's probable acceptance of blank cheque misuse defence (post-wife's suicide) is perverse; presumption rebutted, no disturbance of reasonable view.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the accused is son-in-law of the complainant and is working as an agent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The accused approached the complainant for providing financial help, and the complainant advanced Rs.4,00,000/- to him from time to time. The accused issued a post- dated cheque of Rs.4,00,000/-, dated 08.03.2013, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mandi to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, and it was sent to the bank of the accused. However, the bank of the accused dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused asking him to repay the amount. The accused, instead of paying the amount, sent a reply to the notice. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a Notice of Accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined Gurdas Rai (CW1) and himself (CW2), and Rakesh Kumar (CW3) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the complainant’s case. He stated that he had issued blank cheques in favour of his wife, which were misused by the complainant. He examined Vivansh Rai (DW1) and himself (DW2).

6. Learned Trial Court held that the defence taken by the accused that he had issued blank cheques to his wife for household expenses was highly probable. The wife of the accused used to reside with the complainant. She committed suicide. A Criminal case was also registered against the accused. The complainant obtained the cheques and misused them. This was corroborated by the fact that death had taken place in January 2013 and the cheque pertained to March, 2013. It was highly unlikely that the accused would have issued a cheque after the registration of the criminal case against him. The defence taken by the accused was probable. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court had erred in acquitting the accused. The accused admitted his signature on the cheque, and a presumption arose that the cheque was issued for consideration for discharging the debt/liability. Learned Trial Court did not consider the presumption. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

8. I have heard Mr G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and Mr Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms Tamana, le