2024 (11) TMI 605 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - principal defence taken by the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, and his examination in chief, was that he did not know the respondent and had no transactions with him - HELD THAT - Since the present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of the CrPC, challenging the concurrent findings of both lower courts, this Court s role is limited to assessing the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned order. It is trite law that this Court is required to exercise restraint and should not interfere with the findings in the impugned orders or reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible unless the impugned orders are wholly unreasonable or untenable in law. In the present case, the petitioner has sought to prove his case by controverting that the cheques in question were not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt. It has been contented that the subject cheques were in fact advanced to one Vinod Tiwari as blank signed security cheques since the petitioner had taken a loan for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Vinod Tiwari. It has further been contended that the petitioner did not know the respondent, and the respondent had misused the subject cheques. It is the petitioner s case that no liability was owed towards the respondent. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner had merely stated that he had not taken any loan from the respondent, and that the cheques were given as security to Vinod Kumar. Petitioner not only failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claims but he also did not cross-examine the respondent to raise a probable defence. The petitioner did not adduce any material to suggest that there was no loan transaction between the petitioner and the respondent, or even summon any person to show that the loan existed between the petitioner and one Vinod Tiwari. Merely reiterating the contentions, and making bald assertions do not suffice to dislodge the presumptions raised against the petitioner. In the instant case, upon a consideration of the totality of circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumptions raised against him under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, and the same does not merit any interference - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and the burden of proof.
3. Evaluation of evidence and defense presented by the petitioner.
4. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act:

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). The conviction was based on the dishonor of cheques issued by the petitioner to the respondent, which were returned unpaid due to "funds insufficient." The petitioner admitted his signatures on the cheques, leading to a rebuttable presumption in favor of the respondent that the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

2. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and the Burden of Proof:

Once the petitioner admitted to signing the cheques, the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act that the cheques were drawn for consideration, and under Section 139 that they were received in discharge of a debt, was activated. The petitioner was required to rebut these presumptions by presenting a probable defense. The court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, which establishes that the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the existence of a debt or liability.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Defense Presented by the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that the cheques were given as blank signed security cheques to one Vinod Tiwari and not to the respondent. However, the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to support this claim, such as a complaint against Vinod Tiwari or any proof of repayment. The petitioner also did not cross-examine the respondent or bring any material evidence to suggest the absence of a loan transaction with the respondent. The courts noted that mere assertions without evidence do not suffice to rebut the presumptions under the NI Act.

4. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC:

The High Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is to assess the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned order without reappreciating evidence unless there is a glaring miscarriage of justice. The court cited precedents to highlight that revisional powers are supervisory and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as the petitioner failed to present a probable defense or evidence to rebut the presumptions under the NI Act.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld. The court reiterated the importance of evidence in rebutting statutory presumptions and the limited role of revisional jurisdiction in such matters.