K. PRAKASHAN versus P.K. SURENDERAN

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 10-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. PRAKASHAN 
v. 
P.K. SURENDERAN 
B 
OCTOBER 10, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.) 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881--ss. 139 and 118(g)-
C Presumption under-Nature of-Held: Presumptions are rebuttable-
Standard of proof on prosecution is proof of guilt beyond all reasonable 
doubt, and on accused is mere preponderance of probability-Its not 
necessmy for accused to step into the witness box to discharge burden 
of proof-On facts, trial court holding that though burden of proof was 
D on accused, in view of the materials on records, he must be held to 
have discharged the same, and acquitting him-High Court holding 
that accused having not examined himself cannot be said to have 
discharged burden of proof and convicting him, not sustainable. 
E 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 378-Appeal against 
acquittal-Power of appellate court-Held: Where two views are 
possible, appellate court should not interfere with finding of acquittal 
recorded by court below. 
F 
Respondent advanced a certain sum to the appellant on different 
dates. Appellant issued a cheque for the said amount and the cheque 
was dishonoured. Respondent filed complaint petition against the 
appellant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 
It was appellant's case that his cheque book was stolen. Trial court 
G considered the materials brought on record and held that although 
the burden of proof was on the appellant, in view of the materials 
brought on records, he must be held to have discharged the same, 
and acquitted the appellant. High Court convicted the appellant 
H 
1010 
K. PRAKASHAN v. P.K. SURENDERAN 
1011 
' -./ 
holding that the appellant having not examined himself cannot be A 
said to have discharged the burden of proof cast on him in terms of 
section 139 of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-accused contended that the High Court erred in 
setting aside the acquittal of appellant since for discharging the B 
burden of proof it was not necessary for the appellant to examine 
himself; and that the materials brought on record were found to be 
sufficient for shifting the burden of proof upon the complainant as 
the accused had discharged his primary onus. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1,1. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 raises two 
presumptions; firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as 
contained in section 118 (a) therein and, secondly,a presumption that 
D 
the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in 
section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. 
Presumptions both under sections 118 (a) and 139 are rebuttable in 
nature. Having regard to the definition of terms 'proved' and 
'disproved' as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as also E 
the nature of the said burden upon the prosecution vis-a-vis an 
accused it is not necessary that the accused must step into the 
witness box to discharge the burden of proof in terms of the 
aforementioned provision. The standard of proof so far as the 
prosecution is concerned is proof of guilt beyond all reasonable F 
doubt; the one on the accused is only mere preponderance of 
probability [Para 12 and 13] 
1.2. If two views are possible, the appellate court shall not 
reverse a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible 
G 
'( 
to be taken. The appellate court's jurisdiction to interfere is limited. 
[Para 20] [1021-D] 
2.1. Trial Judge had passed a detailed judgment upon analysing 
the evidences brought on record by the parties in their entirety. The 
H 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R:--~ 
A criminal court while appreciating the evidence bro1;1ght on record may 
have to weigh the entire pros and cons of the matter which would 
include the circumstances which have been brought on record by the 
parties. The complainant has been found to be not a man of means. 
It is not a case where the appellant paid any amount to the 
B respondent towards repayment ofloan. He even did not charge any 
interest. He had also not proved that there had been any commercial 
or business transactions between himself and the appellant. Why the 
appellant required so much amount and why he alone had been 
making payments of such large sums of money to the appellant has 
C not been disclosed. According to him, he had been maintaining a 
diary. A contemporaneous document which was in existence as per 
the admission of the complainant, therefore, was required to be 
br

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.