2022 (1) TMI 101 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Insufficient funds - benefit of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - legally enforceable debt or not - sufficient evidences present or not - HELD THAT - In the case in hand the rebuttal circumstances taken up by the defence is not even consistent enough to rebut the initial presumption drawn in favour of the appellant /complainant. The case of the appellant/complainant is not improbable in the absence of a consistent defence. The accused did not challenge the financial capability of the appellant /complainant to lend the cheque amount as loan. The complainant s denial about his partnership with Royal Finance is of no consequence to the accused, when the accused himself has given confusing statement about his transactions with Royal Finance. Though the learned trial Judge had appreciated this difference in the given time of the respective transactions and other circumstances, the learned Appellate Judge omitted to do so. Though the learned Sessions Judge had applied the right principle of law, that is not applicable to the facts and evidences available in the present case. This Criminal Appeal is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Consistency and credibility of the defense's evidence.
4. Appellate Court's evaluation of the trial court's judgment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The appellant/complainant alleged that the respondent/accused borrowed ?2,50,000 and issued a cheque for repayment, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to 10 months of simple imprisonment with a fine of ?2,000. The appellant followed all legal mandates, including issuing a statutory legal notice before filing the complaint.

2. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The respondent/accused argued that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt. He claimed that the cheque was given as security for transactions with the complainant's father, Periyasamy, who ran a finance company named Royal Finance. The accused provided evidence of previous transactions and repayments to Royal Finance, asserting that the cheque was misused by the complainant. The appellate court accepted this defense, concluding that the accused successfully rebutted the initial presumption under Section 139.

3. Consistency and credibility of the defense's evidence:
The trial court noted inconsistencies in the defense's statements. The accused initially admitted to borrowing ?1,00,000 from Periyasamy but later claimed it was ?25,000. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his signature on the cheque. The trial court found these contradictions significant and ruled in favor of the complainant. The appellate court, however, overlooked these inconsistencies and accepted the defense's version.

4. Appellate Court's evaluation of the trial court's judgment:
The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the complainant's denial of any connection with Royal Finance created a preponderance of probabilities in favor of the accused. The appellate court concluded that the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 139. The High Court, however, found that the appellate court failed to properly evaluate the inconsistencies in the defense's statements and the timing of the transactions. The High Court emphasized that the standard of rebuttal proof could be through preponderance of probabilities, but in this case, the defense's rebuttal was not consistent enough to overturn the initial presumption in favor of the complainant.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and reinstated the trial court's conviction and sentence. The High Court found that the complainant's case was credible and the defense's rebuttal was inconsistent and insufficient to overturn the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court emphasized the importance of consistency in the defense's evidence and upheld the trial court's findings.

← Previous Next →