2018 (8) TMI 828 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - only contention urged by the accused in the course of the trial is that the said cheque was handed over by him to the complainant in some other transaction and the same has been misused by the complainant to lay a false claim against him - Held that - The reasoning assigned by the trial Court that there was no subsisting debt in respect of which the accused could have issued the cheque is liable to be set aside. Moreover, in the instant case, the complainant has produced the covering letter Ex.P.5 which clearly establishes that the accused has taken over the liability of the aforesaid Satyappa Vantigodi and in repayment of the said liability he has issued the said cheque. By taking over the said liability the accused has stepped into the shoes of the guarantor and therefore, even on that score the accused is liable to honor the said cheque. The subject cheque having been dishonored for want of insufficiency of fund, the accused has rendered himself liable for conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act - The contra finding recorded by the trial Court being opposed to the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the material on record cannot be sustained. It would be just and appropriate to sentence the accused to pay the fine amounting to twice the amount of the cheque i.e. ₹ 2,72,468/-. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of the debt due by him or by a third party.
2. Whether the accused could be held liable for the consequences of dishonour of the cheque issued for the debt of a third party.
3. Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was justified.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Issuance of Cheque in Discharge of Debt
The complainant, a public limited company, initiated action against the respondent/accused alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ?1,36,234/- in discharge of a debt owed by one Satyappa Vantagodi for cement supplied by the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured due to "funds insufficient," leading to a statutory notice and subsequent complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The complainant's Legal Officer, examined as P.W.1, produced the original cheque, bank endorsements, legal notice, postal acknowledgment, a letter from the accused, and the account ledger extract as evidence. The trial court, however, found that the complainant failed to establish that the cheque was issued by the accused for his debt, concluding it was related to a transaction between Satyappa Vantigodi and the complainant, and acquitted the accused.

Issue 2: Liability for Cheque Issued for Third Party's Debt
The appellate court examined whether the accused could be held liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for a cheque issued to discharge a third party's debt. The accused contended that the cheque was handed over in another transaction and misused by the complainant. The complainant, however, produced a letter (Ex.P.5) from the accused acknowledging the debt of Satyappa Vantigodi and confirming the cheque was issued against this debt. The court noted that the accused failed to provide evidence of any prior transaction or misuse of the cheque. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in I.C.D.S. Limited Vs. Beena Shabeer, which held that the liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act includes any debt or liability, the court concluded that the accused could be held liable for the dishonoured cheque issued for a third party's debt.

Issue 3: Justification of Trial Court's Acquittal
The appellate court found the trial court's reasoning flawed, as it did not consider the legal principles established by higher courts. The trial court's finding that there was no subsisting debt for which the accused could have issued the cheque was contrary to the evidence and legal precedents. The appellate court held that the accused, by issuing the cheque and the accompanying letter, had taken over the liability of Satyappa Vantigodi, effectively stepping into the shoes of a guarantor. Thus, the accused was liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for the dishonoured cheque.

Conclusion:
The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment of acquittal, finding the accused guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine amounting to twice the cheque amount (?2,72,468/-) within eight weeks, with a default sentence of one year of simple imprisonment.