2020 (10) TMI 310 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - section 138 of NI Act - whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the session judge's court is incorrect and suffers with any illegality or perversity, warranting interference at the hands of this court? HELD THAT - Both the trial court as well as the session judge's court have rightly held that the defence of the accused that he had paid a sum of ₹ 1,00,000 to one Sri Ramesh Kumar at the behest of the complainant is not proved which is a properly reasoned correct finding. Thus, both the trial court as well as the session judge's court have rightly rejected the defence taken up by the accused and have rightly convicted the accused for the alleged guilt. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the said finding of those two courts. The quantum of sentence ordered also being proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, there is no necessity for this court to interfere with the finding given by the trial court and the session judge's court - Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Accused convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Accused's appeal dismissed by the sessions court; Revision petition filed challenging the conviction; Accused's claim of set-off against the complainant's debt; Alleged payment of ?1,00,000 to a third party; Legality of the judgment and sentence.

Analysis:

The accused was tried for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for issuing a dishonored cheque. The complainant alleged that the accused failed to honor a payment of ?3,98,615, leading to legal proceedings. The trial court and sessions court both confirmed the accused's guilt and sentence. The accused challenged this conviction through a revision petition.

The accused argued that the complainant owed him ?1,95,019 and that he had also made a payment of ?1,00,000 to a third party at the complainant's behest. However, the courts found that the alleged debt and payment were from separate transactions and could not be set-off against the dishonored cheque amount. The courts held that the accused's claims did not absolve him of liability under section 138 of the Act.

Regarding the alleged payment of ?1,00,000 to the third party, the courts noted that the accused failed to provide sufficient evidence or call the third party as a witness to substantiate this claim. The courts concluded that the defense raised by the accused was not proven, leading to the rejection of his arguments and upholding of the conviction.

The judgment emphasized that the accused's claims of set-off and third-party payments did not invalidate his liability under section 138. The courts found no legal errors or perversity in the lower courts' decisions and upheld the conviction and sentence. The revision petition was dismissed, and the court recommended an honorarium for the amicus curiae who assisted in the case.

In conclusion, the accused's attempts to set-off debts and claim third-party payments were deemed insufficient to overturn his conviction under section 138 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of separate transactions and the burden of proof in such cases. The courts upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding no grounds for interference with the conviction and sentence.