2021 (12) TMI 328 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of statutory presumption - relationship between the parties is landlord and tenant or not - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - Non mentioning of the second transaction in the first legal notice dated 02.09.2011, can be used by the revision petitioner herein/accused to her advantage in the second complaint said to be pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, is not relevant for in this complaint and such finding rendered by the Lower Appellate Court appears to be proper and the same does not require any interpretation at this revision stage. It is seen from the grounds of the revision that the respondent herein obtained three alleged pro-note marked as Exs.P1, P2 P3 in the Trial Court charging exorbitant interest on the alleged principal amount, the same is contrary to provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957, in the oral evidence PW1, PW2, PW3 clearly demonstrated the same before the Court. The evidence of PW2 and the endorsement made therein has been spoken to by PW3. Issuance of cheques from the account of the accused and the signature is not being disputed on the alleged cheques for legally enforcible debt. However, based upon Exs.P1 to P3/promissory notes which has been clearly demonstrated before the Court, the above contention raised at the revision stage does not alter the position. This Court finds that there is no merits in the revision and the order passed by both the Courts below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference - Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Relationship between the parties - landlord and tenant.
3. Allegations of misuse of cheques and pro-notes.
4. Legal formalities observed in the Trial Court.
5. Statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. Rebuttal of presumption by the accused.
7. Evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense witnesses.
8. Examination of documents and oral evidence.
9. Allegations of exorbitant interest charges.
10. Non-mentioning of legal notice in the complaint.
11. Inconsistencies in legal notices and subsequent complaints.
12. Compliance with Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957.

Analysis:
1. The respondent/complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, resulting in the accused's conviction by the Trial Court and subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The accused contended that the relationship was landlord-tenant and cheques were misused, challenging the interest charges and legal formalities observed.

2. The respondent argued that the accused failed to probablize the defense, relying on statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act. Witness testimonies supported the borrowing and payment history, establishing the complainant's case. The accused's witnesses provided hearsay evidence, failing to rebut the presumption effectively.

3. The defense claimed the complainant sought blank cheques for a loan, but lacked evidence to support the landlord-tenant relationship or loan transactions. The accused's failure to summon bank officials or produce relevant documents weakened their defense, leading to the Trial Court's disbelief and the Lower Appellate Court's confirmation.

4. The defense's attempt to challenge the statutory presumption was unsuccessful due to the lack of evidence regarding loan transactions or the complainant's surety status. The absence of bank documents or positive evidence favored the complainant's case, upholding the Trial Court and Appellate Court's findings.

5. The defense raised issues regarding legal notices and subsequent complaints, alleging inconsistencies and non-mentioning of transactions. However, the Court found these contentions lacking merit, as they did not alter the established facts or warrant interference with the lower courts' decisions.

6. The Court dismissed the revision, confirming the conviction and sentence, as the orders by the Trial Court and Appellate Court were deemed legally sound without any irregularities. The compliance with the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957, was also considered, leading to the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.