2019 (8) TMI 1897 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - funds insufficient - legally enforceable debt or not - despite of service of notice, accused failed to return the amount of cheque - HELD THAT - The statutory assumption is in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards the legally enforceable debt and liability by the accused and the accused has failed to disprove the said presumption. Similarly, there is no crossexamination that the blank cheques were issued towards the security by he accused at the time of entering into the transaction. Thus, the accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque under his signature. He has failed to bring on record that the transaction between the complainant and himself was of any other nature than the claim made by the complainant. In the absence of any material on record, the presumption in favour of the complainant about the issuance of the cheque or discharge of legally enforceable debt and liability cannot be said to be rebutted as required by the law. On the contrary, the complainant has proved and her evidence establishes that the complainant has paid Rs.2,90,000/to the accused by way of handloan from time to time. Thus, no illegality or perversity is noticed in the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below - Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
2. Failure to repay loan amount leading to dishonored cheque
3. Dispute regarding the amount borrowed and repaid
4. Legal presumption in favor of the complainant based on evidence

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a case involving the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was found guilty of dishonoring a cheque issued to the complainant, leading to legal consequences. The lower courts had convicted the accused, and the appellate court upheld the decision, resulting in the filing of a revision before the High Court.

2. The complainant had provided a loan amount to the accused, who failed to repay it, resulting in the issuance of a dishonored cheque. Despite legal notice and opportunities, the accused did not return the borrowed amount, leading to the legal proceedings and subsequent conviction under Section 138 of the Act.

3. A key issue in the case was the dispute regarding the actual amount borrowed and repaid by the accused. The complainant presented evidence showing withdrawals from the ATM and issuance of a cheque by the accused, which was dishonored. The accused's defense regarding the amount borrowed and repaid was not substantiated, leading to the courts favoring the complainant's version based on the evidence presented.

4. The judgment highlighted the legal presumption in favor of the complainant based on the evidence provided. The courts considered the complainant's testimony, the dishonored cheque, and the lack of rebuttal from the accused to establish the liability. The accused's failure to dispute the issuance of the cheque or provide evidence contrary to the complainant's claims led to the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and liability in favor of the complainant.

In conclusion, the High Court found no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the evidence and legal presumptions in favor of the complainant.