9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1471 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Accused neither replied to the Statutory Demand Notice nor complied with the demand - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, the Complainant, in his evidence, has stated about the Hand Loan taken by the Accused, issuance of the impugned Cheque (Ex.P1), its presentation and dishonour, issuance of the Statutory Demand Notice (Ex.P4) and the failure of the Accused to comply with the demand - In the cross-examination of the Complainant, the Accused had taken a Defence that the Complainant had given a loan to one Ravi and was not able to realise it, because, the said Ravi had filed a Petition for insolvency before the Subordinate Court, Erode; Ravi had handed over the impugned Cheque (Ex.P1) of the Accused to the Complainant for filing a prosecution and realizing the amount - Both the Courts below have rightly disbelieved this Defence, because, the Accused, except suggesting his Defence in the cross-examination of the Complainant, did not place any material to support it. Though the Accused can discharge the burden under Section 139 of the NI Act by preponderance of probability as held by the Supreme Court in RANGAPPA VERSUS SRI MOHAN 2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT , even that has not been done in this case. The Trial Court is directed to secure the Accused and commit him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence - Criminal Revision is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Dismissal of appeal by Principal Sessions Court. 3. Revision challenging concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. 4. Burden of proof under Section 139 of the NI Act. Issue 1: Appeal against Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 The case involved an Accused who borrowed a sum and issued a Cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Complainant initiated legal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Trial Court convicted the Accused and sentenced him to imprisonment and compensation. The Accused's appeal was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Court, leading to the filing of a Revision challenging the judgment. Issue 2: Dismissal of Appeal by Principal Sessions Court The Accused's appeal in the Principal Sessions Court was unsuccessful, upholding the Trial Court's decision of conviction. The Accused then filed a Revision challenging the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, seeking relief from the High Court. Issue 3: Revision Challenging Concurrent Findings of Fact by Lower Courts The Accused challenged the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the Principal Sessions Court through a Revision invoking Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court emphasized that it cannot act as a Second Appellate Court in cases with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, citing relevant legal precedents to support this principle. Issue 4: Burden of Proof under Section 139 of the NI Act The Accused attempted to shift the burden of proof by claiming that the Cheque was given to the Complainant by a third party. However, both lower courts disbelieved this defense as the Accused failed to provide supporting evidence. The High Court highlighted that the Accused did not meet the burden of proof under Section 139 of the NI Act, as established in legal precedents. Consequently, the Revision was dismissed, affirming the Accused's conviction and directing enforcement of the sentence. This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the progression of the case, the legal principles applied, and the final decision rendered by the High Court.
|
