9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 556 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - discharge of lawful liability - rebuttal of presumption - Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - This Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by the courts below, which otherwise appear to be based upon the correct appreciation of evidence and as such, same need to be upheld. Moreover, this Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below. Since after having carefully examined the evidence in the present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if any, committed by the courts below while passing impugned judgments, and as such, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. This Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court and further upheld by learned Appellate Court and as such, same are upheld - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Validity of the legal notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and its rebuttal. 4. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 21.12.2019 by the Sessions Judge, Kullu, which affirmed the conviction and sentence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused was found guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of ?12,00,000. The trial court held the accused guilty based on the evidence presented, including the dishonoured cheque and the legal notice issued by the complainant. The accused's defense that the cheque was issued as security and not for discharge of debt was not substantiated with evidence. 2. Validity of the Legal Notice Issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The accused argued that the legal notice was issued one day after the statutory period of 30 days. However, the court found that the legal notice was issued on 31.08.2015, within the statutory period from the date of dishonour (01.08.2015). The court concluded that the notice was valid and within the prescribed time frame. 3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Its Rebuttal: The court emphasized the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a lawful debt. The accused admitted to issuing the cheque and his signatures on it but failed to provide a probable defense to rebut the presumption. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, which states that the onus shifts to the accused to prove otherwise once the presumption is drawn. The accused's claim that the cheque was issued as security was not supported by any evidence, and thus, the presumption stood unrebutted. 4. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC: The court reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC is limited and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. It can only correct glaring errors or gross miscarriages of justice. The court found no such errors in the judgments of the lower courts and upheld their decisions. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court found no illegality or infirmity in the judgments of the lower courts. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to surrender to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, affirming the proper application of legal principles and the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
