2019 (6) TMI 818 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - section 138 of NI Act - rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Act - HELD THAT - It was found that the bus was purchased by the complainant from the original vendor and the matter was under process for transferring the ownership in favour of the complainant. That being the position, while the petitioner being aware of such condition/stipulation in the agreement and he has already made part payment towards purchase of said vehicle cannot be permitted to raise the plea that the complainant being not owner of the vehicle is not entitle to get the remaining part of the amount. By his conduct itself the petitioner now estopped from raising such plea only to frustrate the claim of the complainant. The accused petitioner has miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and the learned trial court has on due appreciation of entire matter on record has came to a proper finding about the guilt of the accused. There appears no irregularly in the order passed by the court below. While maintaining the sentence under Section 139 NI Act the same is converted to a fine of twice the cheque amount i.e. ₹ 3,70,000/- in default SI for six months. Amount of fine be given to the complainant as compensation. The complainant is hereby directed to deposit the amount before the trial court within a period of two months from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act and compensation amount.
2. Validity and legality of the order.
3. Ownership transfer of the vehicle and legal liability.
4. Presumption under Section 139 of the Act and rebuttal.

Issue 1: Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act and Compensation Amount:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment along with a compensation of ?2 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The petitioner contested the case but was found guilty based on evidence presented by both parties, leading to the conviction and the compensation amount.

Issue 2: Validity and Legality of the Order:
The High Court thoroughly analyzed the judgment and order of both the trial court and the appellate court. It was observed that all aspects of the case, including oral and documentary evidence, were discussed and appreciated by both lower courts. The High Court found no irregularity in the orders passed by the trial and appellate courts, indicating a proper evaluation of the matter.

Issue 3: Ownership Transfer of the Vehicle and Legal Liability:
The petitioner argued that the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of sale, questioning the legal enforceability of the debt. However, the court noted that the complainant had purchased the bus from the original vendor, and the ownership transfer process was underway. The petitioner's partial payment towards the purchase, despite being aware of the ownership transfer condition, estopped him from denying the complainant's claim. The court found the petitioner liable to pay the remaining amount based on the agreement and ownership transfer process.

Issue 4: Presumption under Section 139 of the Act and Rebuttal:
The court considered the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused in a cheque bounce case. Despite the petitioner's defense that the post-dated cheque was issued as security only, witnesses and evidence supported the complainant's claim. The court found the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption and upheld the trial court's decision of guilt. The High Court converted the compensation amount to a fine of ?3,70,000, directing the complainant to deposit it within two months, considering the delay in receiving the due compensation.

The High Court's judgment upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing the legal liability of the petitioner and the validity of the compensation amount awarded to the complainant. The detailed analysis of evidence, ownership transfer process, and legal presumptions ensured a fair and thorough examination of the case, leading to a just decision in favor of the complainant.