2016 (10) TMI 515 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonoring of cheques - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that - Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides for raising of presumption to the effect that the holder of the cheque has received it in discharge of liability. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has observed that once the cheque has been issued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it is not available to the accused to take the defence that the cheque was not issued by him. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. After going through the record and the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no apparent illegality or infirmity in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. This Court is not sitting in appeal and is dealing with the revision petition. It is a settled law that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Application, if any, is also disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Discrepancies in complainant's testimony and defense of benefit of doubt.
3. Proof of liability and legally enforceable debt.
4. Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
5. Admissibility of signature on the cheque and defense of non-issuance.
6. Legality of judgments/orders passed by lower courts.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner filed a revision petition against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

Issue 2: The petitioner's counsel argued for the benefit of doubt due to material discrepancies in the complainant's testimony. The defense contended that no liability was proven against the petitioner, citing repayment of a loan and misuse of a security cheque by the complainant.

Issue 3: The complainant established the loan amount and the issuance of the dishonored cheque to discharge the liability. The petitioner failed to make the payment despite a legal notice, supporting the complainant's case of a legally enforceable debt.

Issue 4: Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides for a presumption that the holder of the cheque received it in discharge of liability, reinforcing the complainant's claim.

Issue 5: The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that once the accused admits the signature on the cheque, they cannot deny issuing it, even if dishonored, reinforcing the complainant's case.

Issue 6: The High Court, after considering the arguments and evidence, found no illegality in the lower courts' judgments. The court emphasized that revision jurisdiction does not involve re-evaluating evidence, especially with concurrent findings of fact.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the judgments of the lower courts, and concluded that there was no irregularity or impropriety in the decisions.