2021 (9) TMI 41 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - forged signature or not - rebuttal of presumption - accused did not lead any defence evidence but denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him at the time of recording his statement - offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT - Looking to the conduct of the accused, both the Courts below have clearly observed that the accused is in the habit of changing his signatures regularly and he has also signed in difference ways before the Courts below. Apart from that, the accused has not denied that Ex.P2 does not belong to him. He has simply asserted that the said cheque was taken by complainant from his house and his signature was forged, but the bank endorsement discloses that the cheque was not returned on the ground that the signature mismatch but it was returned for want of sufficient funds. If at all the signature on Ex.P2 is being disputed by him, nothing prevented the accused/appellant to produce his specimen signature available for the period from 1998 to 2003, but he did not do so. The presumption is a statutory presumption and when prima- facie material evidence is placed, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the said presumption - when accused is making allegation regarding forgery of his signature, he would not have kept quiet and he would have intimated the bank and he would have also lodged a complaint in this regard, but his silence speaks lot of things. The conduct was also observed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court wherein he protracted the proceedings for ten years, he absconded and jumped on bail on several occasions. Even before this Court he did not respond to notice and amicus curiae was also appointed by this Court which discloses his conduct. Both the courts below have specifically looking to the conduct of the accused have observed that he is in the habit of changing the style of his signature from time to time and he is in the habit of changing the advocates to defend his case with an intention to obstruct the proceedings and abuse the process of the Court. The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act is in favour of the complainant. Both the Courts below have in detail appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and arrived at a just decision of convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The orders of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court - Revision petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment of conviction and order on sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Failure to appreciate material evidence and drawing presumption under Section 139 of the Act.
3. Dispute regarding signatures, absence of legally enforceable debt, and conduct of the accused.
4. Adverse inference due to non-furnishing of specimen signatures and failure to rebut statutory presumption.
5. Accused's conduct, changing signatures, failure to respond to legal notice, and abuse of court process.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The revision petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and order on sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the lower courts failed to appreciate material evidence and erred in drawing presumption under Section 139 of the Act without evidence of a legally enforceable debt.

Issue 3: The accused disputed signatures on documents related to the transaction, alleged forgery, and failed to respond to legal notices. The courts noted discrepancies in signatures, absence of defense evidence, and denial of incriminating evidence.

Issue 4: Adverse inference was drawn against the accused for not providing specimen signatures for the relevant period, disputing signatures without evidence, and failing to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

Issue 5: The accused's conduct, including changing signatures, protracting legal proceedings, and obstructing court processes, was considered by the courts. The failure to respond to legal notices, absence of defense regarding forgery, and conduct of the accused led to the confirmation of the judgment of conviction and order on sentence.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the judgments of the lower courts. The accused's conduct, failure to provide evidence, and inability to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act led to the decision against him. The courts found no grounds for interference, considering the evidence and circumstances of the case.