9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 980 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - rebuttal of evidence - invocation of revisional jurisdiction - Whether the Courts below have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioners and both the Courts orders suffers from legality and correctness and whether it requires invoking of revisional jurisdiction? - HELD THAT - Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in detail discussed each and every documents and taken note of particularly Exs.P.18 to 25, 26 and 44 and no doubt in Exs.P.50 to 52, the complainant/respondent has also given the complaint and though the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relied upon the documents Exs.D.4 to 7 regarding the amount, which he has received and admitted in earlier documents and those documents are no consequence in view of execution of Ex. P.2, subject matter of cheque and hence there are no reasons to come to other conclusion that the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court surfers from legality and correctness. This Court can only exercise the revisional powers, if the order suffers from any legality and correctness. The scope of revision is very limited. The voluminous documents marked in favour of the complainant/respondent establishes the case of the complainant. There are no merit to invoke the revisional powers to set aside the order of conviction and sentence as well as confirmation made by the Appellate Court - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Adequacy and service of legal notice. 3. Validity of the financial transactions and evidence presented. 4. Rebuttal of the complainant's evidence by the petitioner. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Correctness of Conviction and Sentence: The revision petition challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.12.2018 by the Trial Court and the confirmation order dated 11.11.2019 by the Appellate Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner argued that both judgments suffer from legality and correctness issues. However, the Court found that the petitioner had issued a cheque for ?38,50,000, which was dishonored due to "insufficient funds." The petitioner did not dispute the cheque (Ex. P.2) and acknowledged the receipt of ?26 lakhs (Ex. P.26). The Court concluded that the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not suffer from legality and correctness issues, and thus, the revision petition was dismissed. 2. Adequacy and Service of Legal Notice: The petitioner contended that the legal notice (Ex. P.5) was cryptic and did not contain details of the financial transactions. Additionally, the notices were returned un-served with endorsements indicating that the addressees had left. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner had admitted to one of the addresses and that notices were sent through registered post and certificate of posting. The Trial Court's conclusion of deemed service was upheld based on the General Clauses Act and the judgment of the Apex Court. 3. Validity of the Financial Transactions and Evidence Presented: The petitioner claimed to have availed a loan of only ?5 lakhs, providing signed blank cheques and promissory notes as security. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had acknowledged receiving ?26,50,000 (Ex. P.26) and had executed multiple promissory notes and consideration receipts (Exs. P.18 to 25). The petitioner also admitted to financial transactions with the respondent in a statement before the police. The Court found no explanation from the petitioner for issuing the cheque for ?38,50,000 in 2007, subsequent to a compromise in 2006. The Court concluded that the evidence presented by the complainant, including Ex. P.26 and other documents, supported the claim of a larger financial transaction. 4. Rebuttal of the Complainant's Evidence by the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to accept his defense, despite examining himself and other witnesses. The Court noted that the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for issuing the cheque and failed to rebut the complainant's evidence, which included voluminous documents supporting the claim. The forensic report (Ex. C.1) did not rule out the possibility that the cheque was issued earlier, but the petitioner did not successfully rebut the complainant's case. The Court concluded that the complainant's evidence, including Exs. P.18 to 25 and P.26, established the case, and the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were upheld. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were found to be legally correct and supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner's contentions regarding the adequacy of the legal notice, the validity of the financial transactions, and the rebuttal of evidence were rejected.
|
