2022 (11) TMI 852 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - rebuttal of presumption - accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - This Court finds that complainant successfully proved all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act and since accused despite having received legal notice failed to send any reply to the complainant raising therein dispute with regard to issuance of cheque, if any, in favour of the complainant, there is presumption in favour of the complainant that cheque in question was issued by the accused towards discharge of his lawful liability. Hence, it cannot be concluded that courts below have committed any illegality and infirmity while holding accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Moreover, this Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below. Since after having carefully examined the evidence in the present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as of fact, if any, committed by the courts below while passing impugned judgments, and as such, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. The present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit and judgments passed by learned courts below are upheld.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Evaluation of evidence and rebuttal of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Jurisdiction and scope of revisional power under Section 397 of the Cr.PC.
4. Examination of procedural fairness and potential miscarriage of justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction was based on the dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner to the complainant, which was returned due to insufficient funds. The petitioner's appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed, leading to the present revision petition.

2. Evaluation of evidence and rebuttal of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The trial court found the petitioner guilty based on evidence presented, including the cheque, the dishonour memo, and the demand notice. The petitioner admitted receiving the demand notice but claimed ignorance about how the cheque reached the complainant. Despite being given the opportunity, the petitioner failed to lead evidence in his defence. The court emphasized the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, which the petitioner failed to rebut. The complainant successfully proved the issuance and dishonour of the cheque, and the petitioner's defence was deemed insufficient.

3. Jurisdiction and scope of revisional power under Section 397 of the Cr.PC:
The High Court noted its limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, which allows for supervisory jurisdiction to correct miscarriages of justice but does not equate to the power of an appellate court. The court found no glaring errors or miscarriages of justice in the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. The evidence had already been meticulously examined by the lower courts, and there was no basis for re-appreciation of the same by the High Court.

4. Examination of procedural fairness and potential miscarriage of justice:
The court referenced the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, emphasizing the High Court's duty to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. However, the petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or procedural unfairness in the lower courts' handling of the case. The judgments were found to be well-reasoned and based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court to serve the sentence. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law by the lower courts, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

← Previous Next →