Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1415 (PNJ)

Ram Chand v. Ashok Kumar

2013-10-25

SABINA

body2013
Judgment SABINA, J. Respondent had faced the trial in complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court vide judgment 6.7.2013 acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leave to appeal by the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in treating the case as a civil suit whereas in fact, the Trial Court was liable to proceed against the respondent qua commission of criminal offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the alleged out of Court settlement could not have been relied upon by the Trial Court. In the present case, appellant had filed the complaint against the respondent qua dishonour of cheque dated 10.9.2008 in the sum of Rs.75,000/-. When the cheque in question was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. The learned Trial Court, while acquitting the respondent, has placed reliance on receipt Ex. D1 dated 14.2.2010. As per the said receipt, the appellant had received the payment qua the cheque amount in question. There was nothing on record to suggest that the receipt in question had not been signed by the appellant. Since the appellant had received the amount in question, the learned Trial Court rightly ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under: “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166 , which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 . Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: “8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed” There is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. The reasons given by the Trial Court, while acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence on record by the Trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.