2016 (4) TMI 1471 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - Whether judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court are perverse and based upon non appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and whether learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court have committed illegality as mentioned in memorandum of criminal revision petition? - HELD THAT - Presumptions of Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against the revisionist remained un-rebutted on record. Revisionist did not adduce any oral as well as documentary evidence in order to rebut the presumptions of Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Even as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 there is presumption in favour of holder of the cheque. Complainant is the holder of the cheque Ext. C-1. Cheque Ext. C-1 is duly signed by revisionist in sound state of mind. Revisionist was major when he signed the cheque. It is held that revisionist had admitted his liability of antecedent debt when revisionist signed the cheque Ext. C-1 placed on record. Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 there is legal presumption that cheque was issued for discharging of antecedent liability. Revisionist did not adduce any oral as well as documentary evidence on record in order to rebut the presumption in favour of holder of cheque under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Determination of whether the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court are based on non-appreciation of evidence and if illegality was committed. Final order.

Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case: The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused for not repaying a loan taken from the bank. The accused issued a cheque which bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to legal proceedings.

2. Trial and Appeal: The Trial Court convicted the accused and ordered imprisonment and compensation. The Appellate Court upheld the decision. The accused filed a revision petition against the judgments.

3. Evidence and Witnesses: The evidence included statements from witnesses, documentary evidence such as the cheque, registered letters, and bank documents. The witnesses corroborated the complainant's claims regarding the loan and the bounced cheque.

4. Legal Arguments: The revisionist argued that the cheque was issued as security and that the legal notice was not served properly. However, the court rejected these arguments, citing legal precedents and evidence of proper service.

5. Contradictions and Testimonies: The court found no material contradictions in the evidence presented by the complainant. The testimonies of the witnesses were deemed trustworthy and reliable, supported by documentary evidence.

6. Presumptions and Liability: The court highlighted the legal presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, including the presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque. The revisionist failed to rebut these presumptions with any evidence.

7. Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The case was disposed of, and pending applications were also resolved.

In conclusion, the judgment analyzed the evidence, legal arguments, and presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act to uphold the conviction and sentence of the accused for dishonoring a cheque issued as part of a loan agreement.