9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 187 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - discharge of legal liability - rebuttable presumption - conviction of accused u/s 138 of the N. I. Act - suspicious transaction - HELD THAT - It has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Jharkhand High Court on various occasions that payment of friendly loan without giving any specific date or dates to the accused petitioner in absence of any witness led to suspicious transaction. It has been held by Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajaram Through L.Rs. Versus Maruthachalam 2023 (1) TMI 794 - SUPREME COURT that 'the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. Applying this principle, the learned Trial Court had found that the accused had rebutted the presumption on the basis of the evidence of the defence witnesses and attending circumstances.' The Supreme Court has also held that the issuance of blank cheque with signature only by the accused may not go in favour of the holder of the cheque, i.e. the complainant. Thus, it is evident that opposite party no. 2 had rebutted the presumption in light of the Section 139 of the N. I. Act. Therefore, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court below while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had no financial capacity to pay loan amount to the opposite party no. 2 and thus, this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit - the criminal revision is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the judgment dated 26.03.2021 by the Appellate Court. 2. Financial capacity of the petitioner to advance the loan. 3. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Judgment by the Appellate Court The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur, which set aside the conviction and sentence dated 18.06.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. The petitioner argued that the judgment by the Appellate Court was illegal and not sustainable in law. The Appellate Court had acquitted the opposite party no. 2, who was initially convicted u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to 3 months S.I. and compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Issue 2: Financial Capacity of the Petitioner The complainant alleged that he gave a friendly loan of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the opposite party no. 2, who issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Appellate Court observed that the petitioner lacked the financial capacity to advance such a loan. The petitioner did not provide any Income Tax Returns to substantiate his claim of having the financial capacity to lend Rs. 2,30,000/- or other large sums to various individuals. Issue 3: Rebuttal of Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act The Appellate Court found that the opposite party no. 2 successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act. The opposite party no. 2 and other defense witnesses testified that the petitioner was involved in money lending and had taken blank cheques from several women, including the opposite party no. 2, for small loans. The defense established that the petitioner misused these blank cheques to file false cases. The Court held that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and can be disproved by the accused through preponderance of probabilities. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the judgment of the Appellate Court, concluding that no illegality was committed. The petitioner failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the amount and the opposite party no. 2 successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act. The Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2021 was dismissed.
|
