2020 (2) TMI 1110 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - legally enforceable debt or not - whether Ext.P6 could be regarded a valid document under law as being sufficient to authorise PW1 to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the complainant? HELD THAT - It is proved that Ext.P1 cheque arose out of a hire purchase transaction between the complainant and the accused. The accused does not dispute the transaction nor that he purchased a vehicle availing the loan sanctioned by the company. It has come out in evidence that, after repayment of part of the loan for sometime, there was default and consequently the vehicle was seized and sold by the company. According to the company, the entire loan arrears could not be still realised and this led to the accused issuing Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of partial liability. The veracity of prosecution case could not be successfully assailed by the accused. No rebuttal evidence was also brought in by him. It was sought to be tendered in evidence through PW1, whose authority itself was under challenge. The conduct of the signatory to Ext.P6 in having addressed the Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the case has been tried and sought to tender the document in evidence is not in any way appreciable. Having regard to the lack of proper conduct and also the casual manner in which the document was sought to be brought in evidence which the complainant considered to be material, the view taken by the court below in rejecting Ext.P6 as not being valid cannot be faulted. In my view also, Ext.P6 was rightly dismissed as being inadmissible. In the interest of justice, the appellant ought to be given an opportunity to adduce the requisite evidence to prove that the signatory to the complaint has had legal authority to represent the company in the proceeding before the court below - the order of acquittal of the accused dated 31.01.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to give an opportunity to the complainant to prove that it was properly represented by the signatory to the complaint - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Acquittal of accused in a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Validity of document (Ext.P6) authorizing the complainant's representative to prosecute the complaint.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a consumer credit company, filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a case involving a dishonored cheque issued in partial discharge of debt. The court below accepted the complainant's case but acquitted the accused due to a lack of proof regarding the authority of the complainant's Assistant Manager to represent the company.

2. The main contention in the appeal was the validity of document Ext.P6, which was a photocopy of a certificate addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, stating the authority of the complainant's representative. The court found Ext.P6 to be insufficiently proven and dismissed it as inadmissible evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

3. The High Court analyzed the evidence and confirmed that the dishonored cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt arising from a hire purchase transaction. The court found no grounds to interfere with this aspect of the lower court's decision.

4. Regarding Ext.P6, the High Court criticized the lack of proper conduct in its submission and the casual manner in which it was brought into evidence. The court agreed with the lower court's decision to reject Ext.P6 as invalid due to procedural shortcomings.

5. In the interest of justice, the High Court allowed the appellant an opportunity to produce additional evidence to establish the authority of the complainant's representative. The order of acquittal was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the lower court for a fresh consideration on the issue of representation.

6. The High Court directed the lower court to ensure a fair hearing for both parties, allowing the accused to contest the evidence presented by the complainant. The lower court was instructed to dispose of the case promptly within a period of two months from the date of the High Court's judgment.