Revisional court cannot reverse acquittal where the trial court’s finding of a probable defense is plausible.

The applicant (original complainant) and Respondent No. 2 (original accused) are doctors and relatives.

The applicant alleged that Respondent No. 2 borrowed a total sum of ₹1,25,000 in early 2005 and issued a cheque dated 15.05.2005 for repayment.

Subsequently, a promissory note was allegedly executed on 19.05.2005.

Upon presentation on 03.08.2005, the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “stop payment”.

Despite a statutory notice served on 04.10.2005, no payment was made, leading to the filing of Criminal Case No. 6612/2005 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

The learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, acquitted the accused on 16.11.2006.

1. Whether the trial court committed a patent error in holding that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt despite the signatures on the cheque and promissory note being undisputed.

2. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can set aside an order of acquittal and convert it into a conviction.

The Court applied Section 138 of the NI Act regarding the dishonour of cheques and Section 139, which provides a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque.

It further relied on Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, specifically Section 401(3), which expressly prohibits a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in revisional proceedings.

The Court followed the principles laid down in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander Anr. (2012) regarding the limited scope of interference in revision.

The Court followed the principles laid down in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh (2022), which restricts the Revisional Court from re-appreciating evidence unless the lower court's finding is perverse.

The Court observed that while the signature on the cheque was undisputed, the accused successfully raised a probable defence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.

The trial court found the promissory note (Exh. 11) suspicious due to unequal spacing and typed content, suggesting it was created subsequently to fit the signature.

Furthermore, the handwriting expert’s opinion (Exh. 30) was deemed weak as it was based on photocopies, and the expert was not cross-examined.

The Court noted that if the cheque was already issued in April, there was no logical necessity for a promissory note in May.

The non-examination of the complainant’s wife, who was allegedly a witness to the loan, further weakened the complainant's case.

Highlighting the procedural constraints, the Court noted that under Section 401(3) CrPC, it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction.

Since the trial court's view was a "possible and plausible view" based on the evidence, it did not meet the threshold of "perversity" required for revisional interference.

The Court found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the judgment and order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate were confirmed.