9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 683 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of cheque - legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - rebuttal of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - It is trite that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with orders or judgments of the courts below only if those orders or judgments are suffering from incorrectness illegality or impropriety. Unless the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate or by the Appellate Court is perverse or the view taken by the Court is unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records the revisional Court will not be justified in interfering with the judgment. The revisional Court cannot act like an Appellate Court. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises some presumptions in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the said Act. The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 are rebuttable presumptions. These presumptions are available only if execution of the cheque is admitted by the accused or only if it is proved by the complainant that the cheque is drawn by the accused. Whether the presumptions are rebutted or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the basis for drawing the presumptions exists the court shall draw the presumptions under the said sections in which case it is the burden of the accused to rebut those presumptions. There are no sufficient circumstance to reach to a conclusion that the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective. The comparison of signature of the accused done by the appellate court is also assuming no importance for the reason that even otherwise the evidence adduced from the side of the complainant proves that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Conclusion - The complainant has successfully demonstrated the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the accused s defenses were insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The revision petition is allowed in part modifying the sentence while upholding the conviction and compensation order.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability The relevant legal framework involves Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which criminalizes the dishonor of a cheque for insufficiency of funds when issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant relied on documentary evidence, including an account statement (Ext.P8) and the dishonored cheque (Ext.P1). The court noted that the complainant's evidence, including testimony and documents, demonstrated that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of the debt. The accused admitted the signature on the cheque, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt. 2. Rebuttal of Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act establish a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque that it was issued for consideration. The accused attempted to rebut this presumption by arguing that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt and that the complainant failed to prove the transaction conclusively. The court emphasized that the presumption is rebuttable, but the accused must provide evidence to support the rebuttal. The accused's defense was deemed insufficient, as mere denial of the debt was not enough to shift the burden back to the complainant. The court found that the complainant successfully proved the transaction and the issuance of the cheque. 3. Evaluation of Evidence and Signature Comparison The accused challenged the appellate court's comparison of signatures without expert opinion, arguing that it was improper and unsupported by legal standards. The court acknowledged the accused's contention but found that the evidence on record, including the complainant's testimony and documents, sufficiently proved the issuance of the cheque for a legally enforceable debt, rendering the signature comparison issue less significant. The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law or procedure, not re-evaluating evidence unless there is a manifest miscarriage of justice. 4. Appropriateness of Sentence The trial court sentenced the accused to six months of simple imprisonment and a compensation payment of Rs.5,00,000, with a default sentence of two months. The appellate court confirmed this sentence. The court in revision found the substantive imprisonment excessive given the circumstances and modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, while maintaining the compensation and default sentence. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, emphasizing the following principles:
The court concluded that the complainant had successfully demonstrated the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the accused's defenses were insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The revision petition was allowed in part, modifying the sentence while upholding the conviction and compensation order.
|
