2021 (10) TMI 757 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - failure to lead any evidence despite of opportunity provided - locus standi to file the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act - offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - This Court is convinced and satisfied that complainant successfully proved on record that cheque in question was issued by the accused for discharge of his lawful liability and such cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Evidence led on record clearly reveals that complainant after having received memo from the bank concerned advised accused by way of legal notice to make the payment good within the stipulated period, but since he failed to do so, complainant had no option, but to file/institute complaint under Section 138 of the Act. In the case at hand bare perusal of complaint filed by the complainant Anil Bansal itself reveals that he is the proprietor of Karyana Shop namely M/s. Roshan Lal Sons, which is proprietorship concerned. Complainant has categorically stated that accused used to purchase grocery items in wholesale from his shop, as detailed hereinabove, which fact is otherwise evident from bill Ex. CW1/A, perusal whereof reveals that on 15.11.2016, accused herein purchased 120 bags of sugar and 100 kg. Chickpea from the shop of the complainant. Since complainant specifically pleaded in the complaint that he is proprietor of firm concerned i.e. M/s. Roshan Lal Sons, it cannot be said that he had no locus standi to file the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Moreover, cheque in question has been not issued in favour of Anil Bansal, rather same was issued in favour of firm i.e. M/s. Roshan Lal Sons. This Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below - this Court sees no valid reason to interfere with the well reasoned finding recorded by the courts below, which otherwise, appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, same are upheld. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Admissibility of evidence and propriety of the trial court’s judgment.
3. Maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Jurisdiction and scope of the High Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner-accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented by the complainant, including the dishonored cheque, the bank memo, and the legal notice served to the accused. The accused admitted to issuing the cheque and his signature on it, invoking the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued for a lawful liability. The accused's defense that the cheque was issued as a security was not supported by any evidence, leading to the conviction being upheld by the appellate court.

2. Admissibility of evidence and propriety of the trial court’s judgment:
The trial court meticulously evaluated the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the documents submitted. The complainant successfully demonstrated that the cheque was issued to discharge a lawful liability, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings, and the High Court found no misreading of evidence or law by the lower courts. The High Court emphasized that the accused did not provide any positive evidence to support his defense.

3. Maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the cheque was issued in favor of M/s. Roshan Lal & Sons, while the complaint was filed by Anil Bansal, the proprietor. The High Court dismissed this argument, noting that Anil Bansal had clearly stated in the complaint that he was the proprietor of M/s. Roshan Lal & Sons. The Court referenced the judgments in Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan and S.P. Saklani vs. Shri Ravinder Singh Thakur to support the view that a complaint under Section 138 can be filed by the proprietor of a firm if the cheque was issued in favor of the firm.

4. Jurisdiction and scope of the High Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.:
The High Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., which is supervisory and not equivalent to an appellate court. The High Court's role is to correct miscarriages of justice or procedural errors, not to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a glaring error. The Court found no such error in the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and upheld their judgments. The Court cited the judgment in State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri to emphasize the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, directing the petitioner to surrender and serve the sentence. The Court found that the complainant had successfully proved the issuance of the cheque for a lawful liability and that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.