Case: M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State Of Kerala

The Second Respondent was a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. The Appellant used to carry on transactions in shares through the Second Respondent in the said Stock Exchange. They have been on business terms for some time. A complaint petition was filed on 19.11.1992 by the Second Respondent herein against the Appellant purported to be for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act"), on the followingSecond Respondent had been carrying on business of stock and share brokers under the name and style of "Midhu and Midhuns Co.". It is a sole proprietory concern. The Appellant also used to do transactions in shares through him in his capacity as a share broker. It has not been disputed that the Appellant had closed the account and, thus, when the cheque in question being dated 31.7.1992 (Ex. P-1) drawn on Ernakulam Banerji Road branch of the Syndicate Bank, was presented for encashment by the complainant through his bankers, namely, the Cochin Stock Exchange Extension Counter of the Syndicate Bank, it was returned on 4.8.1982 with the remarks "accounta sum of Rs.3,00,033/- was, thus, owing and due to him from the Appellant in relation to the said transactions. The Appellant is said to have paid a sum of Rs.5000/- in cash and issued another cheque being dated 17.8.1992 drawn on Ernakulam Broadway Branch of the Vijaya Bank for a sum of Rs.2,95,033/-. The said cheque being Exhibit P-3 was presented for encashment on 18.8.1992 through the same bankers, but it was dishonoured on 19.8.1992 as the funds in the account of the Appellant were found to benotice was issued by the complainant on 27.8.1992 informing the Appellant about the dishonour of the said cheque. He sent a reply to the said notice. The defence of the Appellant had been that the first cheque was a blank cheque given by him to Respondent No. 2 by way of security. The second cheque was issued in February, 1992 and the same had been given for the purpose ofRespondent is said to have not issued any contract note pertaining to the transactions the Appellant had withthe trial, Respondent No. 2 has examined five witnesses including himself. The Appellant examined three witnesses. Respondent No. 2, however, did not produce the original books of accounts in order to prove the transactions he had with theprosecution of the Appellant was confined to the dishonour of the cheque dated 17.8.1992the said proceedings, the Appellant herein raised a plea that the Respondent No. 2 was in dire financial assistance and a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,95,033/- was given by way of loan so as to enable him to tide over his difficulties. He also adduced his evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court in its judgment dated 15.7.1994 opined that the Appellant herein had failed to discharge the onus placed on him in terms of Section 139 of the Actthe evidence adduced in this case, I have to hold that the accused failed to rebut the presumptions available to Ext. p3 cheque. The case of P.W.1 that the cheque was issued by the accused on the date mentioned therein for discharging a liability due to him, is supported by Ext. D2 to D9. The case of the complainant that the accused paid Rs.5,000/- and thereafter he issued Ext. P3 cheque, is only to be accepted under this circumstance. I find that the cheque was issued by the accused for discharging a liability legally due to the complainant, point answeredverdict of guilt against the Appellant under Section 138 of the Act on the basis of the said findings was recorded. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for onean appeal preferred there against by the Appellant herein, the said judgment of conviction and sentence was, however, set aside. The appellate court analysed the evidences on records in great details and concluded that explanation offered by the Appellant was morecomplainant, however, aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed a criminal appeal before the High Court which has been allowed by reason of a judgment dated 24.5.1999 which is impugned herein.

Reasoning:
The evidences adduced by the parties before the trial court lead to one conclusion that the Appellant had been able to discharge his initial burden. The burden thereafter shifted to the Second Respondent to prove his case. He failed to dosubmission of the Second Respondent that the Appellant had not denied his entire responsibility and the dispute relating only to the quantum of debt cannot bein the facts and circumstances of this case need not go into the question as to whether even if the prosecution fails to prove that a large portion of the amount claimed to be a part of debt was not owing and due to the complainant by the accused and only because he has issued a cheque for a higher amount, he would be convicted if it is held that existence of debt in respect of large part of the said amount has not been proved. The Appellant clearly said that nothing is due and the cheque was issued by way of security. The said defence has been accepted as probable. If the defence is acceptable as probable the cheque therefor cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of the debt as, for example, if a cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose the same would not come within the purview of Section 138 of thehave gone through the oral evidences. The Second Respondent has even failed to prove that the Appellant had paid to him a sum of Rs. 5000/- byany event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.