Compliance with the mandate of the law, discrepancies between legal notice and complaint, and the court's discretion in granting special leave to appeal against acquittal.

Headnote:
Section 138 NI Act - Special Leave to Appeal - 138 NI Act, 420 IPC - Summary: The court dismissed the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted the respondent. The court found a stark dichotomy between the legal notice and the complaint, leading to non-compliance with the mandate of the law. The appellant's contention that mistakes were clerical was deemed untenable. The court upheld the trial court's decision, citing the legal position and well-reasoned judgment.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant lent a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- to the respondent, who issued a cheque that was returned due to insufficient funds. The appellant served a legal notice and filed a complaint, but the trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent due to discrepancies between the legal notice and the complaint.
Finding of the Court:

The court found a stark dichotomy between the legal notice and the complaint, leading to non-compliance with the mandate of the law. The appellant's contention that mistakes were clerical was deemed untenable. The court upheld the trial court's decision, citing the legal position and well-reasoned judgment.
Issues: Discrepancies between the legal notice and the complaint, compliance with the mandate of the law, and the appellant's contention regarding clerical mistakes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's decision, citing the legal position and well-reasoned judgment, and found the appellant's contention regarding clerical mistakes untenable.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application seeking special leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision and disposing of all pending miscellaneous applications.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) - The appellant through instant application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is seeking grant of special leave to appeal against order dated 29.04.2022 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur has dismissed the complaint of the appellant filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'NI Act') and Section 420 of IPC and further acquitted the accused/respondent.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present controversy and emerging from the record as well arguments of learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellant lent a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- in cash to the respondent and in discharge of his liability, the respondent issued a cheque No. 000502 dated 04.06.2018. The appellant presented the cheque for its encashment which came to be returned on account of 'Insufficient Funds'. The appellant in terms of Section 138 of the NI Act served legal notice upon respondent and thereafter preferred a complaint before Trial Court.

3. The complaint came for consideration before JMIC, Ferozepur who vide impugned order dated 29.04.2022 dismissed the complaint of the appellant and acquitted the respondent from the charge of 138 NI Act and 420 IPC.

4. Learned Trial Court noticed following facts and figures mentioned in the complaint vis-a-vis mandatory legal notice:

i) Legal notice was not addressed to respondent whereas it was addressed to Gurbachan Singh son of Mohan Singh;

ii) As per legal notice, the amount allegedly received on 22.04.2018 was Rs. 50,000/- whereas amount of cheque in question was Rs. 1,13,000/-

iii) The number of cheque mentioned in legal notice was 000005 dated 15.06.2018 whereas cheque mentioned in the complaint was 000502 dated 04.06.2018.

With above-noted facts and figures, Trial Court came to a conclusion that there was stark dichotomy between legal notice and complaint, thus, no legal notice had been served upon the respondent qua cheque in question. With this finding, Trial Court dismissed complaint of the present appellant/applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that signatures of the respondent over cheque are undisputed, thus, there was presumption of legally enforceable liability against the respondent and in favour of the appellant. The trial Court has mechanically dismissed complaint of the appellant. There was clerical mistake in the legal notice which could not be made basis of dismissal of complaint.

6. I have perused the record and heard arguments of the appellant. The present application seeking special leave to appeal is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments while dealing with scope and powers of the appellate court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal has elucidated:

(i) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(iii) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed