Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12779
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
SMT. DAYA RANI – Appellant
Versus
RAJEEV GULATI – Respondent
CRL.LP. 346/2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Cheque Dishonor
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Acquittal - The appellate court must be slow to disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. Principles regarding perverse findings were reiterated, emphasizing that the evidentiary burden must be met. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner loaned money to the respondent, who issued a cheque that was dishonored. The trial court acquitted the respondent due to insufficient evidence of the defence being disproved by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no grounds to challenge the acquittal, affirming the trial court's decision. The presumption of innocence strengthened due to acquittal.
Issues: Whether the trial court's findings were reasonable and whether the petitioner met the burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the burden of proof lies on the accused once the signature on the cheque is admitted, and the court must uphold the presumption of innocence in case of acquittal.
Result: Leave petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Anil Kumar Thakur
For the Respondents:
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal standards and principles under section 138 ni act. (Para 7) |
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
xxx”
7. In order to discharge the burden of the aforementioned liability, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that there are inherent inconsistencies in the version of the petitioner. Firstly, to refute the argument that respondent No.1 has not paid any amount to the petitioner in order to discharge his liability, respondent No.1 stated that he had partly returned the loan amount to the petitioner in her bank account and that Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.LP. 346/2024 PaDgigei ta4ll yo Sfig n8e d By:MANOJ further his remaining liability was only of Rs.32,000/-. Respondent No.1 has been consistent in his defence as seen during the plea taken under Section 251 CrPC as well as in the application filed under Section 145 (2) NI Act and the fact that the entries in the account of the petitioner matched with what the accused contended raises a credible defence and therefore, it can be said that he rebutted the presumption against him. Further, a perusal of records would show that it is the petitioner, who on being asked about the said deposited amount in her bank account gave inconsistent answers regarding the source of the said money. The petitioner claimed that the amount paid by respondent No.1 were towards rental amount but was unable to prove the rent agreement to substantiate the said stand.
8. In light of the settled legal position and the factual situation as enumerated in the impugned judgement and reiterated hereinabove, this Court is inclined to concur with the decision of the trial court. Further, as observed, that the case of the petitioner suffers from defect as she admits to one payment of Rs.6,750/- made on 03.07.2015, a few months after the first loan, thus stretching the case of defence and reducing the liability of the petitioner by Rs.6750/-. Additionally, given that there has been part satisfaction of the liability under the subject cheque by respondent No.1, the petitioner ought to have made the endorsement as required by Section 56 of the NI Act. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr5 is apt on the fact situation and the relevant extract reads as under:
