2024 (11) TMI 603 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - On careful scrutiny of the material on record in this regard, it clearly shows that P.W.3 is the official of the MCDCC bank. In his oral evidence, it has clearly admitted that accused has got two accounts in his bank. One in the individual capacity and another account in the name of Bhagiratha Fishermen Association. He also specifically stated that accused used to operate both the accounts by himself. Why accused has chosen to sign in two different languages is also a question that needs to be explained by the accused under what circumstances, he signed the cheque in question in a particular language is also to be explained by the accused. Absolutely, there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused in this regard - This Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter unless there is a patent factual defect in the case of the complainant or if there is a improper exercise of jurisdiction. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of conviction passed by both the Courts is based on sound reasons and requires no interference in this revision petition - it is noticed that while imposing sentence, without assigning any special reasons, learned Trial Magistrate has imposed Rs.1,32,250/- as the fine amount as against cheque amount of Rs.75,000/-. Out of the which, sum of Rs.1,22,250/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State. Since lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, awarding sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State needs interference by this Court. So also taking note of the fact that no special reasons are forthcoming, ordering sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as the compensation to the complainant as against cheque amount of Rs.75,000/- by reducing fine amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from Rs.1,32,250/- would meet the ends of justice. Revision petition is allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, appeal against conviction, interpretation of joint account for dishonor of cheque, evidence presented by both parties, legal notice, presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, revision against conviction and fine amount, reduction of fine amount, compensation to the complainant, defraying expenses of the State.

Analysis:
The case involved the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque. The accused borrowed Rs.75,000 and issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case under Section 138, and after trial, the accused was convicted by the Trial Magistrate. The accused appealed the decision, but the First Appellate Court upheld the conviction. The accused then filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the conviction.

During the trial, the complainant presented evidence including witness testimonies and documentary evidence to prove the case. The accused denied the allegations and presented his own evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Magistrate and the First Appellate Court considered the evidence and upheld the conviction based on the facts presented.

One of the key arguments raised by the accused was regarding the joint account nature of the cheque issued. The accused contended that since the cheque belonged to a joint account, it required two signatures for honoring, and the absence of the second signature should have prevented its dishonor. However, the courts found that the accused failed to prove that the cheque was from a joint account, as the evidence indicated it was issued by the accused in his individual capacity.

The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, analyzed the evidence and upheld the conviction, stating that there was no factual defect or improper exercise of jurisdiction. However, the Court found the fine amount imposed to be excessive without special reasons and reduced it to Rs.1,10,000 from Rs.1,32,250. The Court also modified the compensation amount to be paid to the complainant and set aside the fine amount for defraying expenses of the State.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision petition in part, maintained the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reduced the fine amount, and modified the compensation to be paid to the complainant, while setting aside the amount for defraying State expenses. The accused was given a deadline to pay the revised compensation amount, failing which the imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate would be enforced automatically.