High Court overturns concurrent judgments citing improper consideration of evidence and failure to examine key witness.
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has acquitted Sri K.V. Vijay Kumar, who was previously convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for a cheque bounce case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ravi V. Hosmani, overturned the concurrent findings of the lower courts, highlighting the failure to properly consider material evidence and the absence of a critical witness.
The case arose from a private complaint filed by Sri V. Madaiah, who alleged that Vijay Kumar issued a cheque for ?5,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite demand notices, the payment was not made, leading to criminal proceedings.
During the trial, the accused admitted to issuing the cheque but claimed it was part of a set of cheques given to a third party, R. Venkateshappa, for a chit fund transaction. The defense argued that the cheque was misused by the complainant in collusion with Venkateshappa. However, Venkateshappa was not examined as a witness, which the High Court deemed a material omission.
The High Court emphasized that under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, while the presumption is in favor of the complainant, the accused can rebut this presumption by raising a probable defense. The court found that the accused's defense was not only probable but also supported by inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and the lack of examination of Venkateshappa.
Justice Hosmani further noted that the lower courts failed to properly assess the evidence on record, leading to a perverse judgment. The court held that the findings were made without full consideration of the entire material, thus warranting interference.
As a result, the High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitted Vijay Kumar, discharging all bail and surety bonds. This judgment underscores the importance of comprehensive evidence evaluation and the necessity of examining all relevant witnesses in ensuring just outcomes in legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
In cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence, and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but sufficient to raise a probability.
Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 118, 139, 138; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 200
Sri K.V. Vijay Kumar v. Sri V. Madaiah, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2841982
