2012 (12) TMI 1221 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Complaints.
2. Rebuttal of the Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act.
3. Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability.
4. Filing of Multiple Complaints in Different Jurisdictions.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Complaints:
The first issue was whether the Complaints were maintainable. The learned Magistrates held that the Complaints were not maintainable as there was no averment in the Complaint that accused nos. 2 and 3 were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the partnership firm's business. The Complainant's counsel argued that the dismissal was erroneous, citing "S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another" [(2005) 8 SCC 89], which states that the signatory of the cheque can be proceeded against. The court concluded that the Complaints could proceed against accused nos. 1 and 3 but not against accused no. 2 due to missing averments.

2. Rebuttal of the Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act:
The next issue was whether the accused had rebutted the presumption arising out of Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The Complainant argued that the presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, citing "Rangappa V. Mohan" (AIR 2010 SC 1898). The accused contended that the accounts were not finalized and the cheques were issued under pressure as security, not for an existing debt. The court found that the accused had successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the accounts were disputed and not finalized, thus shifting the burden back to the Complainant.

3. Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability:
The court examined whether the debt or liability existed on the date the cheques were issued. The Complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- including interest, but the accused argued that the actual liability was much less and disputed. The court noted discrepancies in the Complainant's evidence and found that the accounts were not settled, and the debt was not ascertained. The court concluded that the Complainant failed to prove the existence of the claimed consideration beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Filing of Multiple Complaints in Different Jurisdictions:
The Complainant filed one case in Panaji Court and four separate cases in Ponda Court for the same transaction. The court referred to "Damodar S. Prabhu V/s Sayed Babalal H" [2010 (2) BCR (Cri) 257], which discourages filing multiple complaints in different jurisdictions. The court found this practice to cause harassment and prejudice to the accused.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the criminal appeals, upholding the acquittal of the accused by the lower courts. The judgments were found to be in accordance with the settled principles of law, and no interference was warranted.