2020 (11) TMI 428 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Whether the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffer any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness? - HELD THAT - This being the revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the scope of interference in the matter is very limited. Unless it is shown that the impugned orders suffer perversity, glaring illegality, impropriety or incorrectness, this Court in the revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the matter. Admittedly, the accused neither issued any notice to the complainant for returning the cheque and the car nor initiated any legal proceedings prior to the complainant issuing notice Ex.P3. He admits that he had no impediment to do so - DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the complainant's relative was the surety to the car loan borrowed by him, but he does not know his name and his residential address. That supports the contention of the complainant that to relieve his relative from the car loan liability and he intervened and paid the car loan and that they were two distinct transactions. The trial Court held that car loan transaction and the loan transaction under Ex.P1 were two distinct transactions and the accused failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the trial Court on the sound appreciation of the evidence and the law rightly rejected the defence of the accused, convicted and sentenced him and that was upheld by the First Appellate Court - revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner suffer any illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness?

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the complainant presented a cheque for realization, which was returned by the bank due to insufficient funds and payment stopped by the drawer. The complainant issued a notice claiming repayment of the loan amount, which the accused denied, alleging a different loan amount and transaction involving a car as security. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act, sentencing him to imprisonment, fine, and compensation. The accused challenged this in the First Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court's decision. The accused further appealed to the High Court in a revision petition.

The petitioner argued that the cheque was related to a loan for buying a car, not covered under Section 138 of the Act. He claimed that due to the complainant retaining the vehicle and cheque, he issued stop payment instructions. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support his argument. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the accused admitted to the cheque belonging to his account, and the complainant had the benefit of presumption under the Act, which the accused failed to rebut. The respondent argued that both lower courts rightly convicted the accused.

The High Court, considering the evidence and law, found that the loan transactions were distinct, with the accused failing to rebut the presumption under the Act. The court distinguished a Supreme Court judgment cited by the petitioner, stating it was not applicable to the case. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, dismissing the revision petition. The court found no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the lower courts' orders. The court ordered any compensation amount deposited to be disbursed to the complainant.