2021 (11) TMI 548 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - insufficiency of funds - Legally enforceable debt or not - compounding of offence - HELD THAT - On going through the cross-examination of D.W. 2, it appears that nothing was suggested on the side of the accused, particularly, about the issuance of the said cheque. In the absence of particular entry in the related document, this Court cannot conclude the case that the alleged cheque was obtained from the petitioner by coercion. Therefore, the stand taken by the accused that the cheque pertains to the case has been obtained in the respondent Police Station, has not been proved by way of examining D.W. 2. On scrutinizing the said witness with the other facts, it is seen that both the petitioner and the respondent are residing in Musiri, which is situated near to Trichy. All are aware the travel time between Trichy and Musiri is about one hour. Therefore, in the said circumstances, it is possible for the accused that after availing loan in the morning hours, he travelled to Trichy and attended duty at 11.15 a.m. Therefore, the evidence given by D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 may be in support of the defence taken by the accused, in order to substantiate the said evidence, the documents relied on by him are not sufficient to hold that the stand taken by the revision petitioner is genuine one. Once the signature found in the cheque is admitted, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. Without seeing any perversity or gross injustice in the judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court, this Court cannot interfere with the findings rendered by the Courts below - Since the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi civil in nature, the Parliament has thought it fit to permit compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Instead of sending the accused to prison, this Court is of the view that if the accused deposits ₹ 8,00,000/- towards the cheque amount and another sum of ₹ 1,10,500/- as compensation and costs to the credit of C.C. No. 175 of 2013, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri, on or before 03.01.2022, the Magistrate shall disburse the amount to the complainant if he is alive or to his legal heirs and compound the offence. If the amount of ₹ 9,10,500/- is not deposited on or before 03.01.2022, the trial Court shall issue warrant of commitment for the accused to undergo the sentence imposed upon him - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against concurrent findings in C.C. No. 175 of 2013 and C.A. No. 3 of 2016.
2. Allegation of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Defense of accused regarding the issuance of the cheque.
4. Examination of witnesses and evidence presented.
5. Application of legal principles and precedents in the judgment.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involves a challenge against the concurrent findings in C.C. No. 175 of 2013 and C.A. No. 3 of 2016. The accused was found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and compensation. The appeal against this conviction and sentence was dismissed, leading to the filing of a Criminal Revision Case before the High Court.

2. The respondent alleged that the accused received a loan and issued a cheque which was dishonored, leading to a legal notice and the filing of a private complaint. The trial court and the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence based on the evidence presented by the respondent, including the cheque, return memo, legal notice, and acknowledgment card.

3. The accused defended by claiming that the cheque was obtained through coercion at the police station. Witnesses, including the accused and a Sub-Inspector of Police, provided conflicting accounts regarding the circumstances of the cheque issuance. The accused also presented evidence of loan transactions and duty attendance to support his defense.

4. Various witnesses were examined, including the complainant, police officers, and a branch manager. Documents such as the disputed cheque, return memo, legal notice, and acknowledgment card were exhibited. The court analyzed the testimonies and documents to determine the credibility of the parties' claims and the validity of the evidence presented.

5. The judgment applied legal principles and cited precedents to evaluate the evidence and arguments presented. Reference was made to the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the burden of proof once the accused's signature on the cheque is established. The judgment also highlighted the limitations of revisional jurisdiction in re-analyzing factual findings without perversity or jurisdictional error.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision, confirming the judgments of the lower courts. The accused was given the option to compound the offence by depositing the cheque amount and compensation before a specified date to avoid imprisonment. The judgment emphasized the quasi-civil nature of prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the possibility of compounding the offence as per legal provisions.