The appellate court must affirm acquittals unless demonstrated misconduct or perverse conclusions arise, as rights of the accused and statutory presumptions demand careful scrutiny.

ORDER :

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

The petitioner/accused in a case filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) in C.C.No.551 of 2017 was acquitted by the Trial Court by judgment dated 23.10.2018. The respondent/complainant filed an appeal in C.A.No.63 of 2019. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 27.08.2019 in a haste without hearing the petitioner, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and convicted the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.389 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 13.07.2021 finding that the Lower Appellate Court had reversed the judgment of the Trial Court but failed to give opportunity and hear the petitioner to defend the case, set aside the judgment dated 27.08.2019 and remanded the case back to the Lower Appellate Court. Thereafter, C.A.No.63 of 2019 was heard afresh and the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 11.08.2021 reversed the acquittal of the Trial Court and sentenced the petitioner to undergo one year simple imprisonment and directed the petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs.14,35,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Against which, the present revision is filed.

2.The complaint filed by the respondent is that the petitioner is in the stock market business and known to the respondent for several years. The petitioner used to borrow money from the respondent for his emergency expenses and repay them in short intervals. In the same manner, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.14,35,000/- from the complainant on 29.01.2015, though assured to repay the amount within three months but failed to pay. After several requests and repeated demands, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.173960 dated 28.10.2016 for Rs.14,35,000/- of Union Bank, Coimbatore. The cheque was presented on 02.11.2016 by the respondent in his name at Karur Vysya Bank, Somanur, but the cheque not honored and returned on 04.11.2016 for the reason "funds insufficient." Thereafter, statutory notice issued on 09.11.2016 and the petitioner received the notice on 15.11.2016 but he neither paid the cheque amount nor sent any reply. Thereafter, complaint filed. In this case, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondent examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D8.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the Trial Court considered the evidence in its totality and found that the petitioner had probabilized his defence and there was no loan taken by the petitioner from the accused, it was the respondent who invested in share trading business and the petitioner, as a share broker, was advising him and giving suggestions. In the share trading business, the respondent lost some money and believing that this loss was sustained only due to wrong advice of the petitioner, the respondent misused the cheque which was given by the petitioner for an earlier transaction taking a loan of Rs.45,000/-, a sum of Rs.14,35,000/- filled up and projected as though the petitioner received the same as loan. To disprove the same, the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked eight documents. The petitioner in his evidence as DW1 admitted that the petitioner and the respondent known to each other from the year 2006 and the respondent employed in the firm of one Moorthy who was having a share trading account with the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent shown interest in the share trading and invested in the share trading business and later suffered some loss. To prove the same, he marked the statement of accounts/Ex.D6 for the period 01.01.2015 t