2021 (11) TMI 162 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - debt has not been proved - basic ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been fulfilled or not - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the basic ingredients for conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stood satisfied and the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner by a well-reasoned judgment and has sentenced the petitioner accordingly. There are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, marked as Exhibit - 1, which was issued in discharge of the loan taken by the petitioner from the complainant. There are concurrent findings that all the basic ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been satisfied in the present case. There being no illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgments, the present criminal revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a criminal revision challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge, where the petitioner was sentenced to 3 months of Simple Imprisonment and directed to pay compensation under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for bouncing a cheque of ?1,60,425.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the debt was not proved, while the opposite party contended that the trial court's findings were well-reasoned and the offence under Section 138 was established.

3. The complaint was filed for bouncing a cheque issued for ?1,60,425, and the trial court found that the petitioner had taken a loan and failed to repay, leading to the issuance of the cheque.

4. The trial court examined witnesses, including the complainant, who testified about the loan amount, cheque issuance, dishonor, legal notice, and non-payment by the petitioner.

5. The trial court noted that the petitioner had admitted receiving the loan in writing previously, and the debt was established through various pieces of evidence.

6. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138, and the appellate court upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented, including the cheque issuance, legal notice, and witness testimonies.

7. Both courts found that all elements of the offence under Section 138 were satisfied, and there was no illegality in the judgments. The criminal revision was dismissed, and the bail bond was cancelled.

8. The courts concluded that the petitioner's argument regarding the debt not being proved lacked merit, given the established evidence and findings, leading to the dismissal of the revision.