2022 (7) TMI 84 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - preponderance of probability - rebuttal of presumption - section 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT - This Court, on analysing the documents and depositions, find that the Trial Court has appreciated the law and evidence properly and applied his mind judiciously to arrive at the finding. The reasoning given by the Trial Court appeals both to common sense and law. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not an irrebuttable presumption, it is sufficient if the accused rebut the presumption by preponderance of probability. In this case, the accused through the agreement dated 22/08/2007 entered between him and the complainant has established that the money alleged to have been paid by the complainant was towards the screening right of the film THE HOST and for the 10% commission, it is not a loan as alleged in the complaint. The Trial Court for reasons recorded, had held that the alleged letter of guarantee dated 09/09/2007 is shrouded with suspicious and the witnesses contradictory version about its execution render this document unreliable. Shockingly, the Appellate Court has not even examined the documents but mechanically held that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in the light of the admission of the signature in the cheques and in view of the letter of guarantee dated 09/09/2007. The perversity in the order of the Appellate Court is explicitly exhibited by not appreciating the evidence and apply the correct law - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dishonour of cheques purportedly issued by the revision petitioner in favor of the respondents to discharge the loan.

Analysis:
The case revolves around the dishonour of cheques allegedly issued by the revision petitioner to the respondents to discharge a loan. The complainant claimed that the accused borrowed money for the purchase of a film and gave cheques, which later bounced. The accused, on the other hand, contended that the transaction was misrepresented by the complainant, and the cheques were misused. The Trial Court found that the signatures on the cheques were admitted by the accused, shifting the burden to prove the cheques were not issued for a legally enforceable debt. The Trial Court analyzed the agreement between the parties and a guarantee letter to assess the nature of the transaction.

The Trial Court examined the agreement dated 22/08/2007, which outlined the distribution rights of the film and the terms of commission payment. It contradicted the complainant's claim of selling the film to another distributor and borrowing money to cover losses. Additionally, the Trial Court scrutinized a guarantee letter dated 09/09/2007, finding discrepancies in its authenticity and the witness testimonies. The Trial Court dismissed both complaints based on these findings.

The Appellate Court, however, reversed the Trial Court's decision, holding the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused challenged this decision, arguing that the Appellate Court failed to consider contradictions in evidence and wrongly relied on the guarantee letter. The High Court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the Trial Court's reasoning was sound. It emphasized that the accused had successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by demonstrating the nature of the transaction through the agreement. The High Court criticized the Appellate Court for overlooking key evidence and upheld the Trial Court's decision, acquitting the accused and setting aside the conviction.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Appellate Court's judgment, restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal, and confirmed the same. The revision petitions by the accused were allowed, and any fines paid were ordered to be returned to the petitioner/accused.