2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
M.Gagan Bothra – Appellant
Versus
R.Krishnamurthy – Respondent
Crl.A.No.329 of 2015

In an appeal against acquittal for an offence of cheque dishonour, the appellate court will not disturb findings of a trial court that are based on material inconsistencies and failure of the complainant to prove financial capacity, as such contradictions effectively rebut the statutory presumption of liability.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption under Section 139 - Scope and nature of rebuttal - Complainant filed appeal against acquittal invoking presumption under Section 139, but failed to maintain consistency in pleadings and evidence regarding loan transactions, interest, and issuance of cheques - Trial Court granted benefit of doubt based on inconsistencies and lack of proof for financial capacity - Appellate court observed that while presumption exists, it stands rebutted if the accused demonstrates a preponderance of probability regarding the improbable nature of the transaction or inconsistencies in the complainant's stand. (Paras 37, 44, 45)

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Power of appellate court against acquittal - Interference is warranted only if the trial court's findings are perverse or impossible - Where trial court evaluates evidence and reaches a plausible conclusion, appellate court should not substitute its own view. (Paras 45, 49)

(C) Evidence - Additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. - Appellate court has discretion to admit additional evidence, but should not facilitate filling of lacunae in the complainant's case, especially when documents were available during trial - Failure to produce crucial financial records during trial leads to adverse inferences against the complainant's claim of financial capacity. (Paras 25, 48)

Facts of the case:
Appellant filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a cheque dishonour case. The appellant alleged that a substantial loan was extended to the respondent through multiple promissory notes, backed by cheques. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the appellant failed to prove the financial capacity to lend such large sums, and identified material inconsistencies between the statutory notice, complaint, and oral evidence regarding the timing and nature of the loan agreements.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellant provided contradictory statements across different stages of the litigation regarding the number of cheques issued, the dates of disbursement, and the purpose of the loan. The court held that such discrepancies, coupled with the admitted fact that the appellant filled in blank signed instruments, established a reasonable doubt, thereby rebutting the presumption under the Act.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant successfully established the existence of a legally enforceable debt, whether the presumption under the Act was rebutted, and whether the appellate court should admit additional evidence to cure deficiencies in the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where a complainant's case suffers from material inconsistencies in pleading and evidence, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt is rebutted by the preponderance of probability. An appellate court will not overturn an acquittal order that is neither perverse nor irrational. Result : Appeal dismissed.