2021 (4) TMI 657 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Rebuttal of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act - genuine document supported by consideration or not - HELD THAT - As rightly noticed by the learned Magistrate, it appears that his scribe has strained very much to adjust the space by modulating the size of letters in accordance with the space available above the signature of the first respondent, which is shown in the stamp paper. Moreover, though four signatures of the first respondent are shown in the stamp paper, which, according to the appellant, are that of the first respondent, the first respondent admits only one. On the very face of the document, three signatures are in one ink and another signature on the top, that is found against the name of the first respondent, is in different ink. If the document was signed by the first respondent in a single stretch, two pens might not have been used for the purpose. Similarly, the size of the letters, the attempt of the scribe to fill the gap and the different fonts used for the purpose etc., give an insight that it is not a genuine document executed by the first respondent in the manner alleged by the appellant. The learned Magistrate was not expected or justified in drawing a presumption in favour of the appellant so as to convict the first respondent. If only the appellant/complainant has discharged his initial burden, the first respondent is expected to rebut the presumption - thus, the appellant has not put up a genuine, convincing case; the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with for acquitting the first respondent, in spite of the fact that appreciation of evidence is not up to the expectation. Whatever it may be, overwhelming reasons are not made out to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal challenging judgment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Dispute over loan repayment through a dishonored cheque.
3. Examination of evidence, including witnesses and documents.
4. Legal arguments regarding genuineness of documents and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act.
5. Analysis of the trial court's judgment and appeal for conviction and compensation.

Issue 1: Appeal challenging judgment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 378(3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the legality of the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III. The appellant, who was the complainant, had prosecuted the first respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque.

Issue 2: Dispute over loan repayment through a dishonored cheque
The complainant alleged that the first respondent had borrowed ?70,000 for educational purposes and issued a cheque dated 09.04.2009, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant claimed that the first respondent failed to repay the amount despite a lawyer's notice, leading to the prosecution under Section 142 of the Act.

Issue 3: Examination of evidence, including witnesses and documents
The prosecution presented witnesses and documents, including the complainant and two witnesses as PWs 1 to 3, along with Exts. P1 to P7. The first respondent denied the allegations and provided a different version of events, claiming innocence and lack of acquaintance with the complainant.

Issue 4: Legal arguments regarding genuineness of documents and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act
The appellant argued that the documents and lack of reply to the lawyer's notice supported presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 in favor of the complainant. However, the first respondent's counsel contested the authenticity of the documents and raised doubts about the transaction's credibility, pointing out discrepancies in the complainant's case.

Issue 5: Analysis of the trial court's judgment and appeal for conviction and compensation
The trial court acquitted the first respondent, finding the appellant's case unconvincing and lacking credibility. The High Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish a genuine and trustworthy case. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the documents and the appellant's narrative, concluding that there were no grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The appeal was dismissed, and no conviction or compensation was granted to the appellant.