2022 (2) TMI 131 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or liability - rebuttal of presumption - case of the Respondent-Bank was that although the loan amount was disbursed for a particular purpose, the utilization of the same did not appear to be for the said purpose - HELD THAT - The material on record demonstrates that an account of the Applicant was opened with the Respondent-Bank. The Respondent-bank adjusted the balance amount i.e. ₹2,64,100/- towards the outstanding loan and proceeded on the basis that amount of ₹3,00,000/- withdrawn by the Applicant was to be returned with applicable interest. The record shows that the Respondent-Bank placed on record statement of the savings bank account of the Applicant with the Society as exhibit 34 and statement at exhibit 28 was also placed in support of the claim of the bank that the amount recoverable from the Applicant along with interest came to ₹3,60,910/-. Since the aforesaid documentary evidence was placed on record to support the oral evidence of the witnesses examined in support of the case of the Respondent-Bank, it becomes clear that the conclusion rendered by the Magistrate that the subject cheque was indeed for satisfying the said outstanding amount and therefore relatable to legal debt or liability, cannot be said to be erroneous. The conclusion is based on proper appreciation and interpretation of oral and documentary evidence on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the subject cheque was signed by the Applicant and that, therefore, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act applied in full force. There was nothing brought on record on behalf of the Applicant to rebut such presumption and hence, it cannot be said that the conviction of the Applicant was erroneous. The sentence imposed by the Magistrate also appears to be reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court finds that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below - the Revision Application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on dishonored cheque issuance for legal debt or liability.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant challenged the concurrent orders of conviction by the Magistrate and Sessions Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case arose from a complaint by the Respondent-Bank regarding a loan transaction. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment and a compensation of &8377; 3,65,000 for a dishonored cheque amounting to &8377; 3,60,910.

2. The Respondent-Bank contended that the loan was disbursed to the Applicant, who subsequently withdrew &8377; 3,00,000, leaving a balance. Due to concerns over the loan's purpose and forged documents, the bank recalled the loan and the Applicant issued a cheque to repay the withdrawn amount. The Magistrate convicted the Applicant based on evidence of the loan transaction and cheque issuance.

3. The Applicant argued that the cheque was not issued for a legal debt or liability since the loan was recalled. However, the Respondent-Bank maintained that the cheque was issued to return the withdrawn amount with interest. The Magistrate found in favor of the Respondent-Bank, considering the evidence of the loan, account statements, and the cheque issuance.

4. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, noting that the cheque was issued to satisfy the outstanding amount, supported by documentary evidence and witness statements. The Applicant's signature on the cheque invoked the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The Court found no evidence to rebut these presumptions, affirming the conviction and reasonable sentencing by the Magistrate.

5. The Sessions Court's dismissal of the Applicant's appeal was deemed appropriate, considering the evidence and legal principles applied in the case. The High Court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' concurrent orders, leading to the dismissal of the Revision Application. Any amounts deposited by the Applicant were to be disbursed to the Respondent-Bank.