2008 (2) TMI 962 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent/accused committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Whether the judgment of acquittal by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was legally sustainable.

Summary:

Issue 1: Offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

The appellant filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for Rs.2,60,000/- which was dishonoured due to "funds insufficient." Despite receiving a statutory notice, the respondent failed to make the payment within 15 days, completing the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not drawing the presumption u/s 118A and 139 of the Act, which places the initial burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of debt or liability.

Issue 2: Legality of the Acquittal Judgment

The High Court noted that the cheque and the signature were admitted by the respondent. The court emphasized that the presumption u/s 118A and 139 of the Act should have been applied, shifting the burden to the respondent to rebut the presumption. The respondent failed to provide evidence to substantiate his claim that the cheque was issued as a blank cheque to a third party. The trial court's scrutiny of the evidence was unwarranted, and its finding that the signature on the postal acknowledgment card was not proved to be that of the respondent was perverse. The High Court concluded that the respondent did not rebut the presumption and that the offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:

The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment of acquittal, found the respondent guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and imposed a sentence of one month of simple imprisonment. Additionally, the respondent was directed to pay Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation to the complainant within two months, failing which he would suffer three months of simple imprisonment. The Criminal Appeal was disposed of accordingly.