9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Burden of proof on the accused under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 2. Nature of the burden on the complainant and the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court decisions in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee and Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala. 4. Evaluation of the evidence presented by both parties. 5. Consideration of the sentence imposed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Burden of Proof on the Accused under Section 139 of the N.I. Act: The court examined when the burden on an accused under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can be said to be discharged. It emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 is a presumption of law, which must be drawn where the factual basis for raising the presumption is established. The accused must prove the contrary to rebut this presumption, which means providing evidence that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. The court noted that the burden on the accused is akin to that in a civil case, requiring proof by preponderance of possibilities and probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Nature of the Burden on the Complainant and the Accused: The court discussed the nature of the burden on both parties in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant must prove the execution and issue of the cheque, while the accused must rebut the presumption under Section 139. The court highlighted that the complainant is not required to prove the original transaction or consideration in every case, as this would undermine the purpose of Section 138, which aims to ensure commercial morality and the efficacy of cheque transactions. 3. Interpretation of Supreme Court Decisions: The court analyzed the decisions in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee and Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala. It concluded that the latter did not alter the former's dictum. The presumption under Section 139 remains a presumption of law, and the accused can rebut it using all available evidence, including improbabilities in the prosecution's case and defence evidence. The court reiterated that the burden on the accused is to prove the contrary to the satisfaction of a prudent mind, not merely to raise fanciful possibilities. 4. Evaluation of Evidence: The court evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The complainant's evidence included the cheque (Ext. P1) and the fact that the notice of demand did not evoke any response from the accused. The accused's defence included claims of a different loan transaction and the issuance of blank signed cheques. The court found the accused's version inconsistent and unconvincing, noting the lack of response to the demand notice and the introduction of new theories during cross-examination. The court also considered the improbability of the accused's claim that he handed over a signed blank cheque. 5. Consideration of Sentence: The court considered the sentence imposed on the accused. It upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but modified the sentence. Instead of imprisonment till rising of court, the accused was directed to pay Rs. 2,20,000 as compensation to the complainant, with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment. The court emphasized the need for just and fair compensation to the complainant, who had been fighting the legal battle since 2002. Conclusion: The court concluded that the complainant had satisfactorily discharged his burden, and the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to ensure adequate compensation to the complainant. The judgment reinforces the principles governing the burden of proof in cheque dishonour cases and the importance of commercial morality.
|
