2022 (4) TMI 356 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - failure to prove execution of the cheques beyond reasonable doubt - signing of the cheques itself is execution of it, or otherwise? - ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act are established, or not - prosecutions launched under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - The issuance of a signed blank cheque is admitted by the accused. According to him, the entries in Ext. P1 cheque were not filled by him. Accordingly, the accused attempted to draw a distinction between signing a cheque and executing it. It is not necessary that the complaint must contain all particulars of the alleged transaction in which the disputed cheque was issued - It is found that materials indicative and communicative of the alleged transaction are incorporated in the complaint. Moreover, the accused failed to dispute the source of the complainant to advance the money. The dispute on source of income is found raised for the first time in the revisions on hand. The defence of the accused was that signed cheque was issued as security in a transaction of borrowal of ₹ 5,00,000/- from the complainant. It is pertinent to note that, no evidence was adduced by the accused to discharge the onus of rebutting the presumption by proving on the contrary. During examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C his specific stand was that of innocence. He failed to say anything in tune with the defence he had taken in the complaint - the arguments advanced were also found raised both before the trial court as well as the Apex Court. The courts below considered the arguments in the proper perspective and arrived at a finding of guilt of the accused concurrently and convicted and sentenced him. A jurisdictional error having not been raised against the impugned judgments, revisions are not liable to be admitted - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Failure to prove execution of cheques beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Lack of evidence to establish legally enforceable debt and consideration.
4. Dispute regarding partnership business and issuance of cheques.
5. Different contentions regarding the source of borrowed money.
6. Dispute over the nature of signed cheques and their execution.
7. Discrepancies in the complainant's case and the accused's defense.
8. Bounced cheques leading to the prosecution.
9. Presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.
10. Burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption.
11. Consistency in judgments of lower courts and absence of jurisdictional error.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to revisions filed by the accused in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused, a husband and wife, were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and fines. The defense argued the complainant failed to prove execution of cheques and the existence of a legally enforceable debt. They disputed the partnership business and raised concerns about the source of the borrowed money. The accused admitted issuing signed blank cheques but disputed filling in the entries. The court noted the accused failed to challenge the source of the complainant's funds timely. Discrepancies arose regarding the purpose of borrowed money and the subsequent events leading to the issuance of cheques.

The defense contended the cheques were security for a loan, while the complainant claimed they were for repayment of outstanding amounts. The court emphasized the complainant's uncontroverted oral evidence and witness testimony established the issuance of cheques for repayment. The accused's failure to provide evidence rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act worked against them. Despite raising arguments at trial and appellate levels, the lower courts found the accused guilty, leading to their conviction and sentencing.

The judgment referenced a prior ruling emphasizing the validity of signed blank cheques towards payment, placing the onus on the accused to disprove debt discharge. As no jurisdictional errors were raised against the lower court judgments, the revisions were dismissed summarily. The court's analysis focused on the evidence presented, the burden of proof on the accused, and the application of legal presumptions under the NI Act. The consistent findings of guilt by the lower courts were upheld, highlighting the importance of evidence and legal arguments in such cases.