2023 (9) TMI 169 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - legally recoverable debt or liability or not - complainant failed to submit details of loan outstanding against the accused - rebuttal of presumption - HELD THAT - The High Court, in revision, exercises supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature. It cannot re-appreciate the evidence, as Second Appellate Court, for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. Recently, in case of MALKEET SINGH GILL VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 2022 (7) TMI 1455 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court observed There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. Accused Manoj Kumar has not challenged receipt of loan amount of Rs.2,60,000/- under the Vehicle Loan Scheme. Rather, in examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC, he had specifically admitted that he has taken loan of Rs.2,60,000/- from the complainant Bank under Vehicle Loan Scheme. Therefore, learned Trial Court and Appellate Court have not committed mistake in drawing presumption of existence of legally enforceable liability in favour of the holder of cheque i.e., the complainant Bank - The accused has not submitted any evidence to show re-payment of the loan, therefore, nothing is brought on record to rebut the legal presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The finding of learned Trial Court and Appellant Court does not suffer any patent illegality or perversity. No interference in the concurrent findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for. - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment are the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the authority of the complainant to file the complaint, the existence of legally recoverable liability, and the applicability of legal presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conviction and Sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:
The judgment under review pertains to the conviction and sentence of the accused for issuing a dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused failed to repay a loan taken under the Vehicle Purchase Scheme, leading to the complaint filed by the Branch Manager of the complainant bank. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court both upheld the conviction and sentence, with the Appellate Court affirming the Trial Court's findings after detailed consideration of the evidence presented.

Authority of Complainant and Existence of Legally Recoverable Liability:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the authority of the Branch Manager to file the complaint and the lack of evidence regarding the outstanding loan amount against the accused. The petitioner argued that the complainant failed to establish the legally recoverable debt or liability. However, the courts found that the Branch Manager was authorized to file the complaint, and the evidence presented supported the existence of a legally enforceable liability against the accused. The courts rejected the petitioner's contention that the complaints filed by the complainant lacked clarity on the outstanding loan amount.

Application of Legal Presumptions under Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner contested the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming that the complainant did not provide details of the outstanding loan. However, the courts found that the accused had admitted to taking a loan from the complainant bank and failed to present evidence of repayment. As the cheque in question was issued within the limitation period for loan recovery, the courts upheld the presumption of a legally recoverable liability against the accused. The judgments cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable to the circumstances of this case.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court found no grounds for interference in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence on record in determining the outcome of each case, emphasizing that acquittal in other matters does not automatically lead to acquittal in the case under consideration. The Court affirmed the appropriateness of the sentence and compensation imposed on the accused, considering the non-repayment of the loan by the accused as depriving the complainant of the lent money for an extended period.