2024 (5) TMI 1438 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheques - Offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Joint trial of cases - material alteration of cheques - statutory presumptions - burden of proof - HELD THAT - It is well settled that the standard of proof which is required from the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act is preponderance of probabilities and that the accused is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof, in order to rebut the statutory presumption, can be inferred from the materials on record and circumstantial evidence. There is a specific finding in the trial court judgment that Exhibit P2 cheque is materially altered by the complainant and that the same was originally issued for Rs.50,000/- and later altered and fabricated to one for Rs.7,50,000/- by the complainant and on that ground, the accused was acquitted in C.C and the said judgment has already become final. It is also pertinent to note that the trial court has also recorded a finding that the evidence of DW1 that Exhibit D1 is the receipt issued by the complainant to the accused for payment of Rs.3,50,000/- after the issuance of Exhibit P1 cheque and the said finding is also approved in the impugned judgment and considering the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the said concurrent findings. When the evidence of DW1 and Exhibit D1 receipt proves payment of Rs.3,50,000/- by the accused to the complainant in partial discharge of the earlier liability of Rs.4,00,000/- as per Exhibit P1 cheque and when it is in evidence that the accused has subsequently issued Exhibit P2 cheque for Rs.50,000/- for the balance amount, it cannot be held that Exhibit P1 cheque represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence to show that Exhibit P1 cheque is supported by a legally enforceable debt at the time when the same was presented for collection, I find no reason to interfere with the finding in the impugned judgment that the accused has succeeded in rebutting the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant and in that circumstance, I find that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to dishonored cheques, offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, joint trial of cases, material alteration of cheques, statutory presumptions, and burden of proof.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Dishonored Cheques and Offense under Section 138 of NI Act
The appellant, a complainant, alleged that the accused borrowed a significant amount and issued two cheques which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act for one cheque but acquitted him for the other. The District Court, in appeal, acquitted the accused for the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act in the first case as well.

Issue 2: Joint Trial and Evidence Examination
A joint trial was conducted for both cases, with witnesses and exhibits presented from both sides. The trial court acquitted the accused in one case but found him guilty in the other. The District Court reexamined the evidence and acquitted the accused in both cases based on the defense's arguments.

Issue 3: Material Alteration of Cheques
The defense claimed that the complainant altered one of the cheques, making it unenforceable. The trial court found that the complainant had materially altered a cheque, leading to the acquittal of the accused in one case. The District Court upheld this finding, emphasizing the alteration as a crucial factor in the judgment.

Issue 4: Statutory Presumptions and Burden of Proof
The judgment discussed the statutory presumptions under the NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut these presumptions. The accused successfully raised a probable defense, shifting the burden to the complainant. The judgment highlighted the standard of proof required to rebut statutory presumptions and emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence in such cases.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed based on the finding that the accused had succeeded in rebutting the statutory presumptions in favor of the complainant. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence, material alteration of cheques, and the burden of proof in cases involving dishonored cheques under the NI Act.