9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have originated out of a complaint preferred by P. Balasubramanian (Complainant Respondent) against the appellants. The respondent is the proprietor of a garment company named and styled as 'Growell International', which along with Appellant No.1 was engaged in a business arrangement, whereby they agreed to jointly export garments to France. Certain issues arose regarding delays in shipment and payment from the buyer, due to which, the appellants had to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 11.20 lakhs. To that end, Appellant No.2 issued a cheque on behalf of Appellant No. 1 bearing no.897993 dated 07.11.2000 in favour of the respondent and also executed a Deed of Undertaking on the same day wherein Appellant No.2 personally undertook to pay the respondent in lieu of the initial expenditure incurred by the latter. The respondent presented the said cheque to the bank on 29.12.2000 for collection but it was returned with an endorsement that there were insufficient funds in the account of appellants. In wake of the cheque being dishonoured, the respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2001 asking the appellants to pay the amount within 15 days. The appellants in their reply dated 27.01.2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/( or 20 days simple imprisonment in lieu thereof). Additionally, Appellant No.1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of which, Appellant No. 2 would undergo another one month simple imprisonment. 8. The aggrieved appellants are now before this Court. It may be mentioned at the outset that when the SLP came up for hearing on 12.03.2018, their learned Counsel agreed to deposit the entire amount in dispute and in deference thereto, the appellants have on 11.04.2018 deposited a sum of Rs. 11.20 lakhs with the Registry of this Court. CONTENTIONS 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, nonetheless, desired to argue the case on merits and contended that there was no legally enforceable liability on the date of issuance of the cheque and that blank stamp papers signed by Appellant No.2 were misused by the respondent to forge the Deed of Undertaking dated 07.11.2000. Placing reliance on Murugesan v. State Through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383, 32, he urged that the view taken by the trial Court was a possible view, and the High Court committed patent illegality and exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitution also do not encompass the reappreciation of entirety of record merely on the premise that the High Court has convicted the appellants for the first time in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This Court in Ram Jag v. State of UP (1974) 4 SCC 201, 14, Rohtas v. State of Haryana (2019) 10 SCC 554, 12 and Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2020 SCC Online SC 869, 14, evolved its own limitations on the exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and has reiterated that while entertaining an appeal by way of special leave, there shall not ordinarily be an attempt to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless the decision(s) under challenge are shown to have committed a manifest error of law or procedure or the conclusion reached is ex-facie perverse. 14. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative. In suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity with the bank and his failure to update his account led to debt recovery proceedings. Such evidence does not disprove the appellants' liability and has a little bearing on the merits of the respondent's complaint. Similarly, the appellants' mere bald denial regarding genuineness of the Deed of Undertaking dated 07.11.2000, despite admitting the signatures of Appellant No. 2 thereupon, does not cast any doubt on the genuineness of the said document. 18. Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, 36, where this court held that: "Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt." 19. Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business relationship between the parties, we are of the opinion that the defence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
