FEMA, BANKING & INSURANCE : SC upholds acquittal in cheque bounce case as Trial Court’s order had considered complainant’s ITR, non-production of pro-notes, witnesses & all circumstances
• After analyzing all pieces of evidence, the learned Trial Court found that the Income Tax Returns of the complainant did not disclose that he lent amount to the accused, and that the declared income was not sufficient to give loan of Rs.3 lakh. Therefore, the case of the complainant that he had given a loan to the accused from his agricultural income was found to be unbelievable by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court found that it was highly doubtful as to whether the complainant had lent an amount of Rs.3 lakh to the accused.
• The learned Trial Court also found that the complaint had failed to produce the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the accused on 25th October 1998.
• After taking into consideration the defence witnesses and the attending circumstances, the learned Trial Court found that the defence was a possible defence and as such, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt.
• The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. Applying this principle, the learned Trial Court had found that the accused had rebutted the presumption on the basis of the evidence of the defence witnesses and attending circumstances. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited. Unless the High Court found that the appreciation of the evidence is perverse, it could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. In that view of the matter, the High Court was not justified in reversing the order of acquittal of the appellant.

Adv Megha

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajaram
v.
Maruthachalam
B.R. GAVAI AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1978 AND 1990 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10500 AND 10501 OF 2013
JANUARY 18, 2023
JUDGMENT