2018 (10) TMI 270 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Recovery of amount borrowed - burden of prove - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - It reveals that the respondent/complainant stated that there is money transaction between the appellant/accused and respondent/complainant whereas in the deposition he has clearly stated that he knows the accused from childhood and the accused used to come his father s Cycle Shop and there is no money transactions between him and the appellant/accused. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the above contrary statement made by the respondent/complainant - Further the respondent/complainant did not produce any substantial document to prove his claim except production of disputed cheque/Ex.P1. It is settled proposition of law in criminal case the burden of proof on the side of the prosecution only if it is private complaint then the complainant has to prove his case. In the present case on hand the accused entered into witness box and stoutly denied the execution of cheque and the signature found on the cheque it is for the complainant to substantiate his claim beyond reasonable doubts in the manner known to law. This Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court by judgment dated 23.11.2012 - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Burden of proof on issuance of cheque, Legal presumption under Section 118 & 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Contradictory statements by the complainant, Lack of substantial documents for proof, Burden of proof in a private complaint case.

Analysis:
The case involved a criminal revision against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent/complainant alleged that the appellant/accused borrowed a sum and issued a cheque to discharge the liability, which was returned due to insufficient funds. The lower courts convicted the accused, leading to the appeal and subsequent revision.

The key contention was regarding the burden of proof on the issuance of the cheque. The appellant/accused denied issuing the cheque and challenged the burden of proof placed on him. The respondent/complainant failed to explain how the cheque came into his possession or produce documents proving its execution. The appellant argued that mere production of the cheque was insufficient to prove the debt, citing legal precedents.

On the other hand, the respondent/complainant relied on legal presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden of proof to the accused when the cheque is in possession of the complainant. The courts below had acquitted the accused based on these legal principles and relevant judgments.

The High Court noted discrepancies in the complainant's statements and the lack of substantial documents supporting the claim. It emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, especially in private complaints. As the accused denied issuing the cheque and its signature, the burden was on the complainant to prove the claim beyond reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court. The revision was allowed, and the judgment convicting the accused was overturned. Any bail bond was directed to be cancelled, and the trial court was instructed to refund any amount deposited by the appellant/accused.