2024 (10) TMI 673 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheque - existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - rebuttal of presumptin u/s 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - conviction u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, complainant while examining himself as CW-1, tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he successfully reiterated the contents of the complaint. If the crossexamination conducted upon complainant is perused in its entirety, it cannot be said accused was able to extract something contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief. As has been observed hereinabove, accused though attempted to carve out a case that he had already paid sum of Rs.8,00,000/- against sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, but since there is no mention, if any, of the Cheque in question on the receipt Mark DX1, adduced on record by the accused to prove factum with regard to his having repaid entire amount, Courts below rightly held accused guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act - there is no evidence worth credence suggestive of the fact that Cheque in question was issued as a security, but even if it is presumed that Cheque in question was issued as a security, that may not be of much help to the accused for the reason that by now it is well settled that Cheque, if any, issued as a security can also be presented for encashment, if amount taken or promised to be repaid is not paid. This Court finds that all the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Act are met in the case at hand. Since Cheque issued by accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was returned on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of accused and he despite having received legal notice failed to make the payment good within the stipulated time, complainant had no option but to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, which subsequently rightly came to be decided by both the Courts below on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Since after having carefully examined the evidence in the present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if any, committed by the Courts below, while passing impugned judgments, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. The present criminal revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Evaluation of evidence and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Jurisdiction and scope of revisional powers under Section 397 of the CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court. The trial court had found the petitioner guilty of issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds, thus constituting an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner argued that the cheque was issued as a security and not for the discharge of any debt. However, the courts below held that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a lawful liability, and the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The High Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the petitioner admitted to issuing the cheque and did not sufficiently contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

2. Evaluation of evidence and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The courts relied on the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, which assume that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards a debt unless proven otherwise by the accused. The petitioner attempted to challenge this by claiming to have repaid the debt and by presenting a receipt (Mark-DX1) as evidence. However, the receipt did not conclusively prove repayment, and the forensic examination of the receipt's signatures was inconclusive. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide positive evidence to rebut the presumption, and the complainant's evidence was consistent and credible, thereby supporting the conviction.

3. Jurisdiction and scope of revisional powers under Section 397 of the CrPC:
The High Court emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, which is primarily supervisory and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. The court can only interfere in cases of miscarriage of justice or procedural irregularities. In this case, the High Court found no such errors in the judgments of the lower courts. The evidence had been thoroughly evaluated, and the findings were based on a proper appreciation of the facts and the law. Therefore, the High Court saw no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was directed to surrender to serve the sentence, and the bail bonds were canceled. The court found the judgments of the lower courts to be well-reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and legal principles.