[S. 138 NI Act] Trial Court's Reasonably Formed Opinion Regarding Insufficient Funds Cannot Be Interdicted By Appellate Court: Kerala HC

Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that the Appellate Court will not interfere with the order of the Trial Court if it has been reasonably formed. Relying upon the decisions in Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007), Shyam Babu vs. State of UP (2012) and CBI v Shyam Bihari & Ors. (2023), the Court stated thus:

“In an appeal against acquittal, powers of appellate Court are as wide as that of the Trial Court and it can review, re-appreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on fact as well as on law. But it is well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the Trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate Court. So long as the view of the trial court can be said to be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the appellate court agrees with the same or not, the verdict of the trial court cannot be interdicted and the appellate court cannot supplant the view of the trial court.”

Here, the complainant has preferred an appeal before the High Court against the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque.

The background was that the cheque dated December 23, 2023, issued to the complainant for the discharge of a debt of fifty thousand rupees, when presented for encashment was dishonoured.

The acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class was on the finding that there was no evidence to prove that the cheque was dishonoured for lack of sufficient funds which is an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 138.

The Counsel for the complainant contended that the acquittal has to be reversed since the reason for the return of the cheque was due to insufficiency of funds.

The Court found that the complainant has not produced evidence proving that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It took note of the fact that no bank official was examined as a witness nor were any documents produced in that regard. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for the complainant: Advocate M R Sarin

Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader Pushpalatha M K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 49

Case title: Sasidharan A v Vijayan Unnithan

Case number: CRL.A NO. 2489 OF 2006

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment