2019 (9) TMI 1497 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - allegation is that the cheque was not signed - It is urged that the High Court overstepped the limits which Appellate Court is bound by criminal cases setting aside an order of acquittal - conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - Proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasi-criminal proceedings. The principles, which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases, cannot apply to these cases. As far as the present case is concerned, in addition to three reasons, given by the High Court, we are of the view that the original appellant has not even explained how the leaves of the cheque entered into the hands of the complainant. It is urged that in crossexamination of the complainant some suggestions were made that since the complainant was visiting the office of the original appellant, he had access to the same. The complainant had only admitted that he visited the office of the original appellant but he denied all the other suggestions. Thereafter, it was for the original appellant to prove his part of the case. The High Court was right in holding the original appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Act - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing substitution application.
2. Liability of legal heirs in a case of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Dishonored cheque case with handwriting expert opinion.
4. High Court's judgment overturning Trial Court's decision.
5. Applicability of principles of acquittal in quasi-criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in filing the substitution application and condoned the delay. The application for substitution was allowed, and the abatement was set aside, enabling the legal heirs to prosecute the appeal.

2. In cases of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the legal heirs are not liable to pay the fine or undergo imprisonment. However, they have the right to challenge the conviction of the deceased predecessor if they believe he was not guilty of any offense. The Court allowed the legal heirs to prosecute the appeal in this case.

3. The case revolved around a dishonored cheque where the accused denied signing it. The handwriting expert opined that the signatures on the cheque did not match the admitted signatures. The Trial Court initially dismissed the complaint based on this expert opinion, but the High Court overturned this decision after considering all evidence.

4. The High Court's judgment was based on several reasons, including the accused not stepping into the witness box to deny signing the cheque, the handwriting expert's opinion being inconclusive, and the lack of proof of a reply to the legal notice. The High Court's detailed reasoning led to the overturning of the Trial Court's decision.

5. The Supreme Court discussed the applicability of principles of acquittal in quasi-criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. The Court emphasized that different principles apply to cases under this section compared to regular criminal cases. In this specific case, the Court found that the original appellant failed to explain how the cheque leaves ended up with the complainant, leading to the affirmation of the High Court's decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the complainant to withdraw the amount deposited by the original appellant along with any accrued interest.