2019 (8) TMI 1359 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - discharge of a legally enforceable debt - conviction of the revision petitioner - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - There is no impropriety, illegality or error warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Execution of Ext. P1 cheque by the accused was proved by the evidence of PW1. The revision petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act in any manner. The courts below have properly appreciated the evidence of PW1 and the documents marked on his side and reached the correct conclusion. Therefore, conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is only to be confirmed. The courts below have only imposed a sentence of fine on the revision petitioner. There is also no sufficient ground to interfere with the sentence imposed on him. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for granting a period of six months to remit the fine amount. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a period of three months can be granted for remitting the fine amount. The revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
The revision petitioner, the accused in the case, challenged the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 138 of the Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of money and issued a cheque in discharge of the debt, which was not honored. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine and face imprisonment in default. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' decisions. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, and the evidence supported the complainant's claims.

The High Court noted that the lower courts had correctly appreciated the evidence and reached the right conclusion regarding the conviction. The petitioner's request for a period to remit the fine was considered, and a three-month period was granted for the same. The judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, granting the petitioner three months to pay the fine amount. The courts found no grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed on the petitioner.