2020 (2) TMI 629 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of accused - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - rebuttal of presumption - HELD THAT - Once the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. However, such a presumption is rebuttable in nature and the accused is required to lead the evidence to rebut such presumption. The accused was required to lead evidence that the entire amount due and payable to the complainant was paid. The accused has admitted the issuance of the cheques and his signature on the cheque and that the cheque in question was issued for the second time, after the earlier cheques were dishonoured and that even according to the accused some amount was due and payable, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. Of course such presumption is rebuttable in nature. However, to rebut the presumption the accused was required to lead the evidence that full amount due and payable to the complainant has been paid - In the present case, no such evidence has been led by the accused. The story put forward by the accused that the cheques were given by way of security is not believable in absence of further evidence to rebut the presumption and more particularly the cheque in question was issued for the second time, after the earlier cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, both the courts below have materially erred in not properly appreciating and considering the presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability as per Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the original accused respondents herein for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act).
2. Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
3. Legal liability and issuance of cheques.
4. Rebuttal of presumption by the accused.
5. Financial capacity of the complainant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act:
The complainant was dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, which upheld the Trial Court's acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant argued that the accused had issued cheques that were dishonored, leading to the filing of a complaint. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, and the High Court confirmed this decision. The Supreme Court revisited the evidence and judgments of the lower courts.

2. Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act:
The complainant contended that both the Trial Court and the High Court failed to appreciate the presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. According to Section 139, once the issuance of the cheque and the signature are admitted, it is presumed that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused must then rebut this presumption with evidence.

3. Legal liability and issuance of cheques:
The complainant stated that the accused had issued cheques totaling ?9,55,574, which were dishonored upon presentation. The accused argued that the cheque was issued as security and not for discharging any debt. The Supreme Court noted that the accused had admitted the issuance of the cheque and his signature. The Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

4. Rebuttal of presumption by the accused:
The accused claimed that the cheque was issued as security and was misused by the complainant. However, the Supreme Court observed that there was no evidence to support this claim. The accused did not mention this defense in response to the statutory notice. The Court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139, as no evidence was provided to prove that the debt was paid or that the cheque was issued for any other purpose than discharging a liability.

5. Financial capacity of the complainant:
The Supreme Court distinguished this case from others where the accused questioned the complainant's financial capacity. In this case, the accused did not challenge the complainant's financial capacity. The Court reiterated that when the accused raises a probable defense questioning the complainant's financial capacity, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove it. However, since the financial capacity was not questioned here, the presumption under Section 139 stood in favor of the complainant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that both the Trial Court and the High Court erred in not properly appreciating the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The judgments of the lower courts were quashed, and the accused were found guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused were sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and fined ?10,000 each, with additional compensation to be paid to the complainant. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of acquittal were set aside.

← Previous Next →