Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1182 (RAJ)

Rakesh Chouhan v. Madan Lal

2014-05-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
ORDER This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.6.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Appeal No. 208/2009, whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the accused respondent and set-aside the judgment dated 7.7.2009 passed by the trial court convicting the accused respondent for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year's SI and to pay Rs. 1,65,000/- as compensation. Brief facts of the case are as under : “Complainant-petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the accused respondent. The trial court after recording the statement of complainant took cognizance against the accused under Section 138 of NI Act. The trial court framed charges against the accused, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused person were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 7.7.2009 convicting the accused person for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentencing him as indicated above. Thereafter the accused preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment dated 21.6.2010 set-aside the conviction and sentence of the accused respondent as awarded by the trial court. Against the said judgment of the appellate court dated 21.6.2010, this revision petition was preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court below has committed serious error in appreciation of evidence, which has resulted in a wrong judgment and therefore, the same deserves to be set-aside. He has further contended that in the instant case, the learned appellate court erred while setting aside the judgment of the trial court without considering the statement of PW-1 Rakesh Chouhan, who deposed in his statement that accused Madan Lal his brother-in-law and he took loan of Rs. 90,000/- from Mohan Lal, who is well known to him, therefore, he is mediator between accused Madan Lal and Mohan Lal, but unfortunately dispute raised between Madan Lal and Mohan Lal and being mediator he settled the dispute and paid Rs. 1,35,000/- to Mohan Lal and a cheque in question was executed by accused in his favour as security of money paid by the petitioner to the accused. 1,35,000/- to Mohan Lal and a cheque in question was executed by accused in his favour as security of money paid by the petitioner to the accused. The petitioner realized all the payments of accused which was due against the Mohan Lal, therefore, the legal liability of the payment by the accused was shifted from Mohan Lal to the petitioner and for the satisfaction of legal liability the accused issued cheque in question. Therefore, the judgment dated 21.6.2010 is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the alleged offence. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments : i) 2003 Cr.L.J. 1938 ii) 2006 Cr.L.J. 3504 iii) 1994 (1) Crimes 388 – Alexander Vs. Joseph Chacko iv) AIR 1981 SC 612 v) AIR 2007 SCW 6562 vi) AIR 1999 SC 1428 vii) 1997 (2) Crimes 203 – Satish Vs. Pankaj viii) 2010 (2) WLC SC Crl. 1 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the same. He has contended that the appellate court, after due appreciation of evidence, has passed the judgment, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the appellate court. The court's attention was also drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent and the learned appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent for the alleged offence. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court, I find that the learned appellate court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent/s. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court and the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of the appellate court acquitting the accused respondent.