2023 (10) TMI 47 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - misuse of blank cheque - rebuttal of presumption - cheque signed under coercion or not - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the Complainant has duly proved his cheque and legal notice the accused/applicant also admitted his signature and bank account and he has not rebutted the fact and also failed to proved that at the time of signing the cheque, he was suffering from mental disease. Thus, the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, have rightly convicted the accused/applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act. That apart, it is settled position of law that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional powers of the High Court is quite limited inasmuch as it has to only verify that whether there is any material irregularity and/or illegality coupled with arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order or not. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. The criminal revision preferred by the applicant is bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The case involves a revision filed against a judgment convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for dishonoring a cheque issued for payment of goods purchased.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Conviction and Sentence Upheld:
The respondent filed a complaint against the applicant for dishonoring a cheque issued for payment of goods purchased. The trial court convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Act, which was upheld by the appellate court. The applicant challenged the judgments, claiming improper appreciation of facts and evidence. The defense argued that the complainant failed to establish the cheque was issued for a lawful debt and that the accused was suffering from a mental disease at the time of signing the cheque. However, the courts found the evidence sufficient to convict the applicant.

Issue 2 - Evidence and Presumptions:
The complainant presented evidence including the cheque, legal notice, and witness statements. The applicant admitted his signature on the cheque but failed to prove he was suffering from a mental disease at the time. The courts relied on Section 139 of the Act, which presumes that a cheque is for the discharge of a debt unless proven otherwise. Citing legal precedents, the courts emphasized that even a blank signed cheque attracts the presumption under the Act in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Issue 3 - Limited Scope of Revisional Powers:
The High Court noted the limited scope of interference in revisional powers and the need to verify any material irregularity or illegality in the lower court's order. In this case, no such circumstances were found to warrant interference. Therefore, the criminal revision filed by the applicant was dismissed as lacking substance.