2018 (9) TMI 133 - HC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of respondents for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Whether the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was entitled to claim that he was a Proprietor of the appellant M/s Century Steel Traders? - whether cheque in question was indeed signed by the respondents or that the same had been issued in discharge of legal debt or liability? Held that - The trial Court took into consideration the entire evidence and material on record and found that not only was the appellant unable to prove that the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was its Proprietor, but it had also failed to prove that the disputed cheque pertained to discharge of legal debt or liability. The entire case of the appellant was rendered suspicious and not believable. The analysis of the evidence and material on record by the trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous and the findings are not perverse. It is certainly a possible view taken by the trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record. Not only was the complaint filed by a person who had no authority to file the same, but the signatures on the disputed cheque and other documents appeared to be forged and in any case, there was lack of credible evidence to show that there had been transactions between the parties for which the respondents had issued the cheque in discharge of legal debt or liability. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence when two views are possible, the view that is in favour of the accused is to be adopted. The trial Court in the present case has taken a possible view of the matter and there is no reason why the same is required to be reversed. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any justifiable reason for interfering with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The present appeal is found to be without any merit and it is dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the complainant to file the complaint.
2. Proof of the foundational facts regarding the transaction and issuance of the cheque.
3. Applicability of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. Admissibility and credibility of the handwriting expert's report.
5. Additional evidence and documents at a belated stage.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Complainant to File the Complaint:
The trial court found that the complainant, Rajiv Shivji Sharma, had no authority to file the complaint as he failed to prove he was the Proprietor of M/s Century Steel Traders. Despite presenting a certificate (Exh.126) from the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, the court found inconsistencies in his testimony. The certificate was dated 27.01.2014, but Sharma claimed to have received it on 23.01.2014, casting doubt on its authenticity. The trial court's rejection of the respondents' application to de-exhibit the certificate and call for the original record was opposed by the appellant, further raising suspicions. The court concluded that the certificate alone could not establish Sharma’s proprietorship, especially given his admissions during cross-examination that he was not the Proprietor and had signed documents as an authorized signatory.

2. Proof of the Foundational Facts Regarding the Transaction and Issuance of the Cheque:
The appellant claimed that the respondents ordered M.S. scrap and issued a cheque for ?27,33,850/-, which was dishonored. The trial court found insufficient evidence to prove the transaction. The appellant’s witness admitted during cross-examination that there were no prior transactions with the respondents and failed to provide material evidence of delivery, such as truck registration numbers or detailed delivery challans. The trial court noted discrepancies, such as the absence of order details in the challans and the unexplained delay in cheque issuance, undermining the credibility of the appellant’s claims.

3. Applicability of Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The trial court held that the appellant failed to establish foundational facts to invoke presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. Given the lack of credible evidence of the transaction and the disputed cheque, the court found that the presumptions did not operate in favor of the appellant.

4. Admissibility and Credibility of the Handwriting Expert's Report:
The respondents presented a handwriting expert who testified that the signatures on the disputed cheque and documents were forged. Although the expert admitted to using photocopies for comparison, the trial court found the report credible as the copies were obtained from the court's original record. The expert's testimony was not effectively challenged on the merits, leading the court to rely on the report, which contributed to the finding that the signatures were likely forged.

5. Additional Evidence and Documents at a Belated Stage:
The appellant filed applications under Sections 311 and 391 of the Cr.P.C. to introduce additional evidence and documents, including examining the Inspector from the Department of Shops and Establishment. The court dismissed these applications, considering them an afterthought and finding no exceptional circumstances to justify additional evidence. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashok Tshering Bhutia, emphasizing that additional evidence should be allowed sparingly and only in the interest of justice, which was not applicable in this case.

Conclusion:
The trial court's judgment acquitting the respondents was upheld. The court found that the appellant failed to prove that Rajiv Shivji Sharma was the Proprietor of M/s Century Steel Traders and that the disputed cheque was issued in discharge of a legal debt. The evidence presented, including the handwriting expert's report, supported the respondents' defense of forgery and lack of transaction. The appellant’s applications for additional evidence were dismissed, and the appeal was found to be without merit.