IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 75 of 2007() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.3/2007 Dated 04/01/2007 CC.80/2006 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- THANKAMMA KOCHUMON, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O. LATE KOCHUMON, MANAKKAPARAMBU, GODOWN ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL, KOCHI-24. BY ADVOCATE MR.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. A.K.SEBASTIAN, AGED 56 YEARS, ALANGADAN HOUSE, GODOWN ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL, COCHIN-682 024. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU ADVOCATES MR.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R2 SMT.K.SRIJA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the accused acquitted under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the complainant/appellant is that towards the discharge of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, the accused issued two cheques bearing Nos. 129512 dated 6.11.2005 and No. 129513 dated 13.11.2005 for Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively drawn on the United Bank of India. When the above cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Thus on receiving the intimation from the bank, the complainant had caused to issue lawyer notice to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheques and also demanding the payment of the amount. As the accused failed to pay the amount, the complainant approached the court by filing a written complaint and upon her sworn statement C.C. No. 80/2006 was instituted in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. On the appearance of the accused, the Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -2- particulars of the allegations were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty, which resulted in further trial of the case during which the complainant herself was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.P1 to P8 documents. After closing the evidence of complainant, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure during which the incriminating circumstance brought at the time of prosecution evidence, put to him and he denied the same. The specific case put forwarded by the accused is that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 75,000/- on 2.2.1999 and at that time the complainant obtained two blank cheques from him and according to the accused he was paying monthly instalment regularly. In order to substantiate the case of the accused DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and produced documentary evidence such as Exts.D1, D2 to D10 and D11. On the basis of the rival pleadings, trial court formulated five issues for its consideration. Finally, it is found that the complainant failed to prove that the accused had executed Exts.P1 and P2 cheques for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt of Rs.2,50,000/- hence, she failed to prove the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C, which is the above finding and order of acquittal challenged in this appeal. Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -3- 3. After considering the pleadings in the complaint and evidence adduced by the complainant, the trial court found that the details and nature of the debt or liability is not pleaded in the complaint or in the proof affidavit. It is also observed that, normally a complaint is not bound to plead and prove the details of the debt or the transactions resulting issuance of cheque. But, when the accused disputed the debt or liability and the complainant had knowledge about the dispute through reply notice, the complainant is bound to prove the debt or liability for which the accused issued the cheque. The Trial Court also found that the complainant filed the complaint after receiving the reply notice, but she has not stated details of the debt or liability or details of the transaction either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit. After perusing the evidence and also the cheques in question the trial court has held that the complainant has not adduced any evidence about the execution of Exts.P1 and P2 cheques by the accused at the time of borrowing the amount. Thus according to the Trial Court the evidence of the complainant are not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof, regarding the execution of cheques and to find that Exts.P1 and P2 are the cheques coming under Sections 5 and 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whereas the trial court based upon the materials Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -4- and evidence adduced by the accused and considering the nature, the facts and circumstances involved in the case, came to the conclusion that, the complainant failed to prove that the accused had issued Exts.P1 and P2 cheques to her for the discharge of debt of Rs. 2,50,000/- as pleaded in the complaint and stated in the proof affidavit. It is on the basis of the above observation and finding, the trial court acquitted the accused. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the accused has admitted the execution and signature etc. It is also argued that the inconsistent and conflicting plea raised by the accused itself is sufficient to approve the correctness of the case of the complainant and also liability of the accused towards the complainant. The learned counsel pointed out that in Ext.P7 reply, the accused has admitted that he had received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and issued two blank cheques in 2005. But when the accused was examined, he contended that he had received Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant during the year 1999 and issued blank cheque. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that when PW1 was examined she had deposed fully in terms of the complaint and she had deposed about the transaction between the complainant and the accused and also the amount due to the complainant. The learned counsel further Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -5- submitted that regarding those deposition of the complainant there is no cross examination from the side of the defence and therefore the said evidence has to be taken as admitted by the accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of Section 82 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the accused has not discharged his liability either of the way elaborated in Section 82 of the Act. Thus according to the learned counsel, the finding arrived on by the court below is liable to be reversed. The learned counsel further submitted that mere denial by the accused regarding the passing of consideration and existence of debt not sufficient. According to the learned counsel, Exts.P1 and P2 cheques which contained signature of the accused and the evidence adduced by the complainant are sufficient to extend the statutory benefit under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. Thus the burden is on the accused to discharge the above presumption by adducing cogent and satisfactory evidence and mere denial of the execution or passing of consideration are not sufficient. 5. I have carefully considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel. Paragraph 1 of the complaint reads : “1] Towards the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt of Re.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) due to the complainant, the accused issued two cheques bearing No. 129512 Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -6- dated 6.11.2005 and No. 129513 dated 13.11.2005 for Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) and Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) respectively, drawn on the United Bank of India, KHWWB Extn. Counter, Edapally Toll.“ From the above statement in the complaint, it can be seen that there is no pleading with necessary particulars regarding the transaction between the complainant and the accused and the details which lead to the issuance of the cheques in question. As observed by the trial court, it is to be noted that the above complaint is filed after receiving Ext.P7 reply notice send by the accused. So the complainant has got an idea regarding the possible defence which likely to be taken by the accused and to be faced by the complainant. But still no pleadings with material particulars are given in the complaint especially with respect to the “Debt” or “Financial Liability” contemplated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. An affidavit in lieu of the chief examination was filed by the complaint wherein also no averment with respect to the above aspects. So going by the complaint itself it can be seen that the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not properly pleaded and proved before the court below. In the absence of pleading in terms of the ingredient mentioned in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is impermissible to adduce evidence and if any evidence is Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -7- adduced in violation of the above legal bar, the same has to be ignored and rejected. If that be so, absolutely there is no pleading and evidence regarding the debt or financial liability connected with Ext.P1 and P2 cheques. 7. The Trial Court observed that when complainant is cross examined she has stated that accused borrowed the amount from her by executing Exts.P1 and P2 cheques but the pleadings in the complaint and the proof affidavit would show that the cheques were issued by the accused for the discharge of pre-existing debts. The trial court further observed that on comparing Exts.P1 and P2 cheques, it can be seen that the writing or pay order in Exts.P1 and P2 cheques were in different ink and different handwriting. Thus the trial court held that in spite of all these adverse circumstances, the complainant has not adduced any evidence about the execution of Exts.P1 and P2 cheques by the accused at the time of borrowing the amount. As indicated earlier the specific plea taken by the accused is that he borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 2.2.1999 and at that time the complainant obtained two blank cheques from him and such cheques were misused for filing the present case. Whereas the case of the complainant is that the accused had issued the cheques for a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Since there is no evidence regarding the execution and issuance of the cheques in Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -8- terms of the transaction alleged by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. The burden on the accused to rebut presumption will arise only when the complainant or the holder of the cheque succeeded in establishing a prima facie case regarding the existence of debt or the liability and the execution and issuance of the cheques. But in the present case, even though, the complainant is not entitled to get the presumption under Section 139, the accused had adduced oral evidence through DW1 and 2 and also adduced documentary evidence to substantiate his case. The evidence adduced by DWs.1 and 2 regarding the transaction on 2.2.1999 is fully substantiated by the contemporaneous documents like Exts.D2 to D10 books. On the basis of the above materials and on after evaluation of the available materials, the trial court found that the case of the defence is more probable and the complainant has failed to discharge his duty to prove the execution and issuance of the cheque. 9. It is not correct to say that the accused has raised only a bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt. As pointed earlier, the burden of the accused to rebut the presumption will arise only when the holder of the cheque making Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -9- a prima facie case. The present case, the accused by adducing evidence both oral as well as documentary, substantiated his plea. The trial court which got the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the parties found that the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 along with Exts.D1 to D10 documents, persuaded the trial court to believe the case of the accused that Exts.P1 and P2 and blank cheques obtained by the complainant at the time of borrowing Rs.75,000/- on 2.2.1999 as recorded in Ext.D1 book. 10. The apex court in the decision in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya Hegde [2008 (1) KLT 425 (SC)] held that “existence of a legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It does not raise a presumption in regard to existence of a debt also. In the very same decision the Apex Court has held that while considering the question of rebuttal of the presumption, in cases, where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be considered. In the said decision it is further held that whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof as as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities'. Inference of preponderance of Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -10- probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In the decision in M/s.Kumar Exports v. M/s. Sharma Carpets [2009(1) Supreme 231], apex court has held that the accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, and for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. It is also held that the accused has also an option to prove non existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exeptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Thus going by the above decision and application and the above dictum in the present case, the judicial discretion exercised by the court below in favour of the accused do not warrant any interference by this court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction. In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. [2008(4) KLT SN 17 (Case No. 17) SC], the hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain circumstances under which appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the trial court. In that decision, the Apex court has held that appellate court can interfere only when there is substantial and compelling reasons. Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 -11- The same position is reiterated by the apex court in the decision in Batcu Venkateshwarlu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [2009(1) Supreme 67]. In the above decision, the apex court has held that in case of acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of the accused and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. Going by the materials and evidence and also perusal of the judgment under challenge, I find no compelling and substantial reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. In the result there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE rhs