2017 (8) TMI 81 - HC - Indian Laws

Complaint under Section 138,141 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act - Held that - There has been no rejoinder caused by respondent. Ex.P2 in both cases are Statements of Account marked by respondent. Though invoice numbers have been provided in the Statement of Accounts, the particular invoices had not been marked before the trial Court. It is seen that payment to the tune of ₹ 43,07,000/- is acknowledged but dates of receipt thereof are not informed. The Statements of Account marked as Ex.P2 in both cases can only be seen as self-serving statements. Though the trial Court has accepted the Statement of Accounts, there is a specific finding of the appellate Court that the same cannot be accepted. Even so, the appellate Court makes an error of informing a finding of conviction on the basis thereof. Respondent/ complainant has admitted in cross that he has received back 576 skins. The Account Statements do not inform of any adjustment there towards. It is the contention of petitioner that in his reply notice it had been informed that about 5500 pieces of sheep nappa skins were defected. As stated supra, no rejoinder has been caused by respondent. A series of transactions between the parties is admitted. In the circumstances, the defence contention of a genuine dispute regards the dues has failed to receive consideration. The burden cast on the accused u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is light. This Court is of the view that petitioner has discharged the same. Therefore, it is for the respondent/complainant to prove the debt. This, in our considered opinion and for the reasons above informed, respondent/complainant has failed to do.

Summary

Issues:
- Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Onus of proof on the accused
- Examination of witnesses and exhibits
- Appeal against concurrent judgments

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The respondent informed the court that the petitioner had issued cheques amounting to ?70 lakhs, which were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. The complainant followed the procedure under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the filing of complaints. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and ordered him to pay compensation. The appellate court upheld the convictions. However, the High Court found discrepancies in the evidence presented, leading to doubts about the actual dues owed by the petitioner. The court noted that the burden of proof under Section 139 of the Act was wrongly placed on the accused, and the complainant failed to prove the debt conclusively. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Cases, setting aside the lower court judgments and acquitting the petitioner of all charges.

Onus of proof on the accused:
The High Court observed that the trial court's reliance on the complainant's self-serving statements and the appellate court's acceptance of these statements without proper verification led to an erroneous conviction. The petitioner had raised a genuine dispute regarding the dues owed, including the return of goods, which the complainant did not adequately address. The court emphasized that the burden under Section 139 of the Act was light and held that the petitioner had discharged it. As a result, the court concluded that the complainant had failed to prove the debt, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.

Examination of witnesses and exhibits:
The trial court had examined witnesses and marked exhibits in both cases, with discrepancies noted in the evidence presented. However, these discrepancies did not affect the overall decision of the High Court, which focused on the substantive issues related to the burden of proof and the validity of the complainant's claims.

Appeal against concurrent judgments:
The petitioner had appealed against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which had convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellate court had upheld the convictions, leading to the filing of the present revisions. The High Court carefully reviewed the evidence, legal arguments, and procedural aspects of the case before ultimately overturning the lower court judgments and acquitting the petitioner.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the onus of proof on the accused, examination of witnesses and exhibits, and the appeal against concurrent judgments. The High Court's decision to acquit the petitioner was based on the failure of the complainant to conclusively prove the debt and the errors in placing the burden of proof on the accused.