2019 (10) TMI 223 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - rebuttal of presumption - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, accused has been not able to rebut the statutory presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. complainant and as such, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the judgments/order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Courts below - All the ingredients of S.138 of the Act stand duly proved in the case at hand, as such, this Court finds no occasion to interfere with the judgments/order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Courts below, as such, same deserve to be upheld. The petition at hand is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Evaluation of evidence and statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Rebuttal of statutory presumptions by the accused.
4. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence provided by both parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and a compensation of ?75,000 to the complainant. This conviction was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the petitioner sought acquittal from the High Court.

2. Evaluation of evidence and statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court examined the evidence presented, including the dishonored cheque, statutory demand notice, and testimonies of witnesses. The complainant successfully proved that the cheque was issued to discharge a lawful liability. The court noted that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds and that the accused failed to make the payment despite receiving the statutory demand notice.

3. Rebuttal of statutory presumptions by the accused:
The accused argued that the cheque was issued as a security and not for the payment of rent. However, the court found that the accused failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The court highlighted that the accused admitted to issuing the cheque and his signatures on it. The defense witness, DW1, claimed that rent was paid regularly but failed to produce any receipts to support this claim.

4. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence provided by both parties:
The court scrutinized the testimonies and documents provided by both parties. The complainant's evidence, including the dishonored cheque and bank memos, was found credible. The court also noted that the accused did not produce any receipts to prove that the rent was paid in cash. The court emphasized that the statutory presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption, and the accused must provide proof to rebut it, which he failed to do.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence provided by the complainant was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The court upheld the judgments and order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts. The petition was dismissed, and the accused was directed to surrender before the trial court to serve the sentence.

← Previous Next →