2018 (4) TMI 377 - HC - Indian Laws

Legality and correctness of judgments dated 30.10.2017 - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Issuance of Cheque as security - Held that - It has come on record that the respondent was in possession of relevant documents and had offered to produce them if so required. The petitioners did not insist for production of those documents. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the petitioners for not insisting for the production of those documents. Moreover, the petitioners themselves did not produce any document, whatsoever, to show as to how and in what manner the cheques in question were issued in favour of the respondent. The petitioners have admitted about the receipt of legal notice and no response to it was given by them. The findings of the courts below based upon fair appreciation of evidence deserve no intervention and are confirmed - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging legality and correctness of judgments upholding conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed revision petitions to challenge the judgments of the Addl. Sessions Judge upholding the conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence, emphasizing that the cheques were issued as security and not towards any liability discharge. The respondent failed to prove the delivery of goods or return the cheques despite demand. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that there was no reason to interfere with the lower courts' findings. The High Court noted that the cheques were issued by the petitioners to the respondent, who had a business relationship for over four years, involving the delivery of goods. The petitioners did not produce any documents to support their claims, and adverse inference was drawn against them for not insisting on the production of relevant documents.

The High Court confirmed the lower courts' findings, stating that the evidence supported the legal liability for the cheques issued. It was noted that the respondent was willing to produce relevant documents, but the petitioners did not request them. The court upheld the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favor of the cheques' issuance. The High Court found that the lower courts' appreciation of evidence was fair and deserved no intervention. The petitioners' failure to respond to the legal notice and the absence of documentation supporting their claims further strengthened the case against them.

Regarding the sentencing, the High Court observed discrepancies in the application of judicial mind by the lower courts. The sentences for the petitioners varied based on the cheque amounts, with default sentences of simple imprisonment for six months. The court noted that the default sentence should consider the compensation amount, which was twice the cheque amount. The High Court modified the default sentences to three months, one month, and ten days for the respective cases, while upholding the compensation amounts. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently for all revision petitions.

In conclusion, the revision petitions were disposed of with the modified sentence orders. The trial court record was to be sent back immediately, and the Jail Superintendent was to be informed of the order.