9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 310 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - issuance of signed blank cheque - contention is that the cheques were issued in blank and the cheques were not filled, but signature on the cheque was not denied - award of sentence - HELD THAT - The Apex Court in BIR SINGH VERSUS MUKESH KUMAR 2019 (2) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT succinctly held that once a person signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It had also been held by the Apex Court by the said judgment that even if a blank cheque is voluntarily presented to the payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars which itself would not invalidate the cheque. In the present context there is no allegation from side of the accused petitioner that she signed the impugned cheques involuntarily. The accused petitioner denied her debt or liability. Her case is that she repaid full amount of advance to the respondent - Law is well settled that mere denial would not absolve the accused from the liability unless the statutory presumptions under the N.I Act is rebutted by the accused and the contrary is proved by adducing cogent evidence, direct or circumstantial - In Laxmi Dyechem Vrs. State of Gujarat and others 2012 (12) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court held that under Section 139 of N.I Act it has to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability but such presumption should be rebutted by adducing evidence. It is no case of the accused petitioner that she signed the impugned cheques or parted with those cheques under any threat or coercion - the statutory presumptions that the cheques were issued by her in discharge of her liability arises against her which she could not rebut by adducing evidence. Therefore, in so far as her conviction is concerned, there are no error in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Award of sentence - HELD THAT - The trial Court sentenced her to a fine of ₹ 15,00,000/- and in default to S.I for six months and in case No. N.I. 113/2008 the trial Court sentenced the accused respondent to fine of ₹ 20,00,000/- and in default S.I for six months. It was directed in both the cases that fine on realisation be paid to the complainant respondent as compensation - it is deemed appropriate to reduce the fine imposed on the accused by way of sentence to ₹ 24,00,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of Cheques Issued as Collateral Security 2. Reliance on Previous High Court Judgments 3. Evaluation of Evidence and Discrepancies 4. Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability 5. Sentence Appropriateness Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of Cheques Issued as Collateral Security The petitioner argued that the impugned cheques were issued as collateral security and thus, she could not be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The court, however, dismissed this argument, citing that the issue had already been raised and decided by the High Court in previous proceedings. The court reiterated that even if cheques were issued as security, they could still be enforced when the need arises, as per the Bombay High Court's decision in Balaji Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Vilas Bagi and Another. 2. Reliance on Previous High Court Judgments The petitioner contended that the appellate court should not have relied on the High Court's previous judgments regarding the maintainability of the cases. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the previous judgments were pertinent and correctly relied upon. The court emphasized that the issue of maintainability had already been settled by the High Court. 3. Evaluation of Evidence and Discrepancies The petitioner claimed that the courts below did not appreciate the discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, the court found that the evidence was consistent and credible. The trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where she did not deny issuing the cheques but claimed they were blank and issued without understanding the agreements. The court noted that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to support her defense. 4. Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability The petitioner argued that there was no enforceable liability or debt on the date the cheques were issued. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bir Singh Vrs. Mukesh Kumar, which held that once a person signs a cheque, they remain liable unless they rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for payment of a debt or liability. The court noted that the petitioner admitted her business transaction with the respondent and taking an advance, thus establishing a legally enforceable debt. 5. Sentence Appropriateness The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a fine of ?15,00,000 and ?20,00,000 in two separate cases, with a default sentence of six months' simple imprisonment (S.I.). The appellate court affirmed this sentence. However, the court noted that the complainant had taken post-dated cheques of ?35,00,000 against an advance of ?24,00,000. Considering this, the court found it appropriate to reduce the fine to ?24,00,000, with the default sentence remaining the same. Conclusion The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 N.I. Act but modified the sentence to a fine of ?24,00,000, with a default sentence of six months' S.I. The petitioner was directed to deposit the fine within two months, failing which the trial court would enforce the default sentence. Both criminal revision petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|
