2012 (10) TMI 737 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheque - rebuttable presumption - appellant submitted that no amount was due and that the respondent stealthily removed two cheques from the custody of the appellant of which the present one was forged and presented for clearance. - the trial Court found the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and acquitted her under Section 255(1) of Cr. P.C. - The High Court while reversing the judgment of the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence and sentenced her to pay a fine. Held that - The judgment of the trial Court in having drawn the conclusions to the effect that the appellant sufficiently rebutted the initial presumption as regards the issuance of the cheque under Sections 138 and 139 was perfectly justified as there was no circumstance warranting the execution of Exhibit P-1 cheque in favour of the respondent. Also that the preponderance of probabilities also fully support the stand of the appellant as held by the learned trial Judge. The judgment of the High Court in having interfered with the order of acquittal by the learned trial Judge without proper reasoning is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment impugned is also set aside. The amount deposited by the appellant with the trial Court in a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs with accrued interest, if any, shall be refunded to her on production of a copy of this judgment.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cheque issued by the appellant.
2. Rebuttal of the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Evaluation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court.
4. Compliance with the legal requirements under Sections 8, 9, 138, 139, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cheque Issued by the Appellant:
The respondent claimed that the appellant issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 25 lakhs towards the outstanding amount for construction work. The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant contended that no amount was due and alleged that the cheque was stolen and forged. The trial court found that the appellant rebutted the presumption of the cheque's validity, concluding that no offence under Section 138 of the Act was made out. The High Court reversed this decision, finding the appellant guilty and imposing a fine.

2. Rebuttal of the Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The appellant argued that she rebutted the initial presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The trial court accepted this argument, noting significant admissions by the respondent and the absence of reliable documentary evidence to prove the debt. The High Court, however, failed to properly consider the evidence presented by the appellant and concluded that the appellant did not produce sufficient records to prove no amount was due.

3. Evaluation of Evidence by the Trial Court and the High Court:
The trial court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence, including the respondent's admissions and documentary evidence, concluding that the appellant was not guilty. The High Court, on the other hand, did not adequately consider the appellant's evidence and reversed the trial court's decision without proper reasoning. The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to be perverse and unsupported by the evidence.

4. Compliance with Legal Requirements under Sections 8, 9, 138, 139, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The appellant raised a contention based on the definitions of "Holder" and "Holder in due course" under Sections 8, 9, 138, 139, and 142 of the Act, arguing that the respondent did not fulfill these requirements. The Supreme Court noted that this contention was raised for the first time but found that the respondent's status as payee/holder was not duly proved.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's judgment was justified and supported by cogent reasoning and evidence. The High Court's judgment was set aside for failing to properly consider the evidence and for displaying total perversity in its approach. The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court were also set aside. The appellant was entitled to a refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 25 lakhs with accrued interest. The appeal was allowed with these directions.

← Previous Next →