2023 (11) TMI 1122 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - no proper service of notice - complainant has not proved his case - do the question of rebuttal arise? - HELD THAT - Once the cheques are placed before the Court and the petitioner has not denied the signatures available in the cheques, except a general denial that he has not issued the cheques, he has not given any explanation. The Trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and once the issuance of cheque is proved by the complainant, the same has to be rebutted and no such rebuttal evidence is placed by the petitioner. Though he has been examined before the Court, in his chief evidence, except denying the service of notice and issuance of cheques, no material is placed before the Court to substantiate this contention. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record, in Para No.13, taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and with regard to proving of the transaction, the complainant has relied upon Exs.P11 to P17, credit bills and in order to rebut the claim of the complainant, no documents are produced and though the accused took the contention that those three cheques were issued to the son of the complainant towards chit transaction, nothing is stated in his chief evidence that those three cheques were given to the son of the complainant his evidence is silent with regard to the same and the defence has remained as a defence. Thus, no error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and unless the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court fail to consider the material on record, the question of invoking revisional jurisdiction does not arise. The Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction, only if the material evidence is not considered by the Courts below and if the order suffers from its legality and correctness. The petitioner has not made out any ground to exercise revisional jurisdiction and there is no merit in the revision - answered in negative. The revision petition is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of legal notice.
2. Proof of transaction and liability.
3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Rebuttal of complainant's case by the accused.

Summary:

Issue 1: Proper Service of Legal Notice
The accused contended that there was no proper service of notice. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concluded that the notice was sufficiently served based on the admission by the accused regarding the address and the postal endorsement stating 'party refused'. The revision petition argued that the notice was not properly served, but the courts found the service sufficient.

Issue 2: Proof of Transaction and Liability
The complainant, a proprietor of a business, alleged that the accused, a regular customer, purchased materials worth Rs.2,00,000/- on credit and issued three cheques towards this liability. The cheques were dishonored due to 'funds insufficient'. The complainant provided bills (Exs.P11 to P17) and other documents to substantiate the claim. The accused denied the transaction and the issuance of cheques. However, the courts noted that the accused did not provide evidence to contradict the transaction or explain the issuance of cheques.

Issue 3: Presumption Under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
The Trial Court drew a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut. The accused did not deny the signatures on the cheques, which supported the presumption of liability. The First Appellate Court upheld this presumption, noting that the accused did not provide any explanation or evidence to counter the complainant's claims.

Issue 4: Rebuttal of Complainant's Case by the Accused
The accused argued that the complainant did not prove the transaction and that the bills did not bear signatures. The courts found that the accused did not effectively rebut the complainant's evidence. The accused's defense that the cheques were issued for a chit transaction was not substantiated in his evidence. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concluded that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of liability.

Conclusion:
The Karnataka High Court found no error in the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The courts properly appreciated the evidence and drew the correct legal presumptions. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

← Previous Next →