2016 (11) TMI 24 - HC - Indian Laws

Offense Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that - By proving his case by way of leading the oral as well as documentary evidence, the respondent no.2/complainant had duly proved all the essential ingredients of his case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The respondent no.2/complainant has also placed on record the promissory note signed by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is an admitted case of the petitioner himself that the cheque in question bore his signatures. Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides for raising of presumption to the effect that the holder of the cheque has received it in discharge of liability. The plea of the petitioner that he had issued the cheque in question to one Sukhbir Singh has not been established as Sukhbir Singh was never examined by the petitioner. The petitioner was given opportunity to lead his defence evidence. Despite availing the said opportunity, the petitioner had not produced any defence evidence to establish his plea that he had given the cheque in question to one Sukhbir Singh. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has observed that once the cheque has been issued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it is not available to the accused to take the defence that the cheque was not issued by him. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. After going through the record and the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no apparent illegality or infirmity in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. Proof of legally enforceable debt for the issued cheque.
3. Adverse inference for not producing witness.
4. Examination of evidence and legal arguments.
5. Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
6. Applicability of previous judgments.
7. Revision petition challenging lower courts' decisions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner filed a revision petition against the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The lower courts upheld the conviction and sentence, leading to the filing of the present petition.

Issue 2: The complainant established a legally enforceable debt by proving that a loan was given to the petitioner, who issued a cheque that bounced. The petitioner's defense of lack of proof was dismissed due to the evidence presented by the complainant.

Issue 3: The petitioner failed to produce a witness related to the complainant, leading to an adverse inference. The petitioner's argument regarding the witness not being produced was countered by the court.

Issue 4: Both parties presented their arguments, and the court examined the material available on record before reaching a decision.

Issue 5: The court discussed the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, stating that the holder of the cheque is presumed to have received it in discharge of liability. The petitioner's claim of issuing the cheque to another individual was not substantiated.

Issue 6: The court referred to a previous judgment highlighting that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the accused cannot deny issuing the cheque, especially if it was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Issue 7: The court, after reviewing the record and submissions, found no illegality in the lower courts' decisions. It emphasized that the revision court cannot re-appreciate evidence and upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the appellate Court, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition as it found no irregularity or impropriety in the judgments/orders passed by the lower courts. The application, if any, was also disposed of accordingly.