Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 193 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption - contention of the petitioner is that learned Trial Court has based its finding on surmise and conjecture and has not considered the evidence on record - HELD THAT - D.W-1 has failed to rebut the presumption raised against him which include the existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability. In the present case the defendant petitioner has produced some money receipt as exhibit B series which indicate that he has paid ₹ 52,000/- to M/S. Fortune Filling Centre owned by the complainant opposite party no. 2 towards interest against the loan received by him. The documents produced by the petitioner in his evidence before the trial establishes that he has a business transaction with the complainant and he issued the cheque in favour of the complainant in discharge of his liability. Learned Magistrate while awarding compensation against the drawer of the cheques has not assigned any reason as to why he did not compensate the complainant to the extent of the total cheque amount. There are no illegality in the judgment passed by learned Magistrate in respect of the sentence and compensation. The Appellate Court has also noticed this fact and pointed out that it is within the discretion of the trial to award compensation and no illegality have been committed due to the difference between the cheque amount and the compensation - the petitioner cannot escape his liability from making payment of the debt he has conceded by issuing the cheques in favour of Opposite Party no. 2. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 2nd Court, Haldia - revisional application is dismissed on merit.
Issues:
1. Revision against judgment under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Allegation of dishonored cheques leading to criminal proceedings. 3. Examination of evidence and documents in the case. 4. Conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Appeal dismissal and subsequent criminal revision. 6. Petitioner's contention of cheques issued as security, not discharge of debt. 7. Absence of private opposite party during revision hearing. 8. Legal arguments and evidence analysis by both sides. 9. Presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 10. Failure to rebut presumption of legally enforceable debt. 11. Compensation awarded against the drawer of the cheques. 12. Legality of judgments and sentencing. 13. Dismissal of revision application and directions to the department. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a criminal revision against the judgment under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, challenging the conviction and sentencing arising from a complaint by the Opposite Party no. 2 regarding dishonored cheques issued by the petitioner. 2. The case involved allegations of dishonored cheques issued by the petitioner to the complainant, leading to criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant, including the issuance of demand notices and subsequent legal actions. 3. The examination of evidence and documents in the case included testimonies of witnesses, marking of cheques and return memos, and consideration of documents presented by both the accused and the complainant. 4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment and compensation, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court. 5. The appeal against the judgment dismissal led to a criminal revision where the petitioner contended that the cheques were issued as security and not in discharge of any debt, seeking to set aside the impugned order. 6. The absence of the private opposite party during the revision hearing necessitated the appointment of an Amicus Curiae to assist the court in presenting the petitioner's case. 7. Legal arguments were presented by both sides, with the petitioner arguing against the liability to discharge the debt, while the State emphasized the dishonor of the cheques and compliance with statutory requirements. 8. The court considered the evidence on record, including the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and analyzed the arguments put forth by the Amicus Curiae and the State's advocate. 9. Presumptions under the Act, including sections 118 and 139, were crucial in determining the liability of the accused based on the issuance and dishonor of the cheques. 10. The failure of the accused to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and the issuance of cheques in discharge of the liability were key factors in the court's decision. 11. Compensation awarded against the drawer of the cheques was examined, with the court finding no illegality in the judgment regarding the sentence and compensation. 12. The legality of the judgments and sentencing was upheld, with the court determining no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the lower courts. 13. The revision application was dismissed on merit, with directions given to the department and the disposal of all pending applications related to the criminal revision.
|