9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 787 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - The presumption raised against the petitioner/accused person under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the cheque was issued by the petitioner and received by opposite party no. 1 for discharge of petitioner's debts to the complainant/opposite party no.1, has not been rebutted in the instant case. The cheque bearing the signature of the petitioner and drawn on Mughberia Central Cooperative Bank Limited being cheque No.1551 dated 30.03.2015 has been produce as exhibit-1 - the learned Magistrate was abrest of the essential evidence that the cheque issued by the petitioners was dishonored and on demand by notice the drawer failed to make payment. Therefore the learned Judicial Magistrate committed no error in finding the accused/ petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner having issued the cheque in question is liable for non-clearance of the same and non-payment of the dues to opposite party no.1. To ensure due payment to the drawee of a cheque, the court trying the offence is empowered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to impose a sentence of imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine, which may extend to twice the cheque amount or both - there are no illegality in the impugned judgment where a substantive sentence of three months of imprisonment as well as a compensation twice the cheque amount has been awarded in favour of the opposite party no.1, against the petitioner. There is no merit in the criminal revision filed by the petitioner and the same is dismissed - revision dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal against judgment and order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2019. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, wherein the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Judicial Magistrate was affirmed. The petitioner argued that the court should have scrutinized the source of the alleged loan amount and contended that the conviction and sentence were erroneous. The petitioner sought to set aside or quash the impugned order. 2. The petitioner was granted interim bail on the condition of depositing the loan amount. The opposite party was allowed to withdraw the amount. The criminal revision was heard due to the non-representation of the petitioner by their advocate. The opposite party no. 2/State was not represented as the case originated from a private complaint. 3. The opposite party's advocate referred to the case details where the petitioner issued a cheque for a loan amount which was dishonored twice. The complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty, leading to the appeal and subsequent affirmation of the judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge. 4. The petitioner was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence, and the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted. The court found no error in the lower court's decision based on the evidence presented. 5. The High Court found that the lower courts did not commit any error in convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment was upheld as the petitioner was liable for non-clearance of the cheque and non-payment of dues to the opposite party. 6. The High Court concluded that the impugned judgment suffered from no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness. The criminal revision was dismissed, and the judgment was upheld. The court directed the transmission of the judgment copies to the lower courts for information and execution. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the appeal, the arguments presented, the court's findings, and the final decision rendered by the High Court.
|
