9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot of the petitioner s case. As the impugned decision is primarily based on considering the evidences produced by the respective parties, it is not considered necessary to individually deal with the ratio of the respective decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel representing the parties. The principles emerging from these authorities have been applied in the judgment of the High Court. Petition dismissed. - ANIRUDDHA BOSE And SANJAY KUMAR , JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Avnish Pandey, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. The common petitioner in these four petitions for special leave to appeal is a partnership firm dealing in iron and steel products. The petitioner has assailed a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her account. Though the complainant was a partnership firm, by referring to the complainant using the pronoun he or him , she alluded to Ramesh Kumar Gupta only, with whom, the arrangements were given effect to. According to her, in this process, many cheques were exchanged to settle profit and loss and on good faith, according to her, the complainant also used to keep certain blank cheques signed by her which were to be deposited as and when the complainant had profit. It also transpired in course of hearing before the Trial Court that there was an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ), in relation to which respondent no.1 had been chargesheeted and in a search and seizure action, some cheque-books of the respondent no.1 were also seized. As an explanation to her non-reply to the petitioner s demand notice, the respondent no.1 had submitted that she was expecting a child during that period and the child was born on 27.05.2009. 4. The defence case, in essence, was that the cheques, the dishonour of which is the subject of this proceeding, were neither issued nor handed over to the complainant, but these were illegally procured by the complainant/petitioner fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Senior Counsel appeared and argued before us that all the ingredients of Section 138 of the 1881 Act stood satisfied because signature of the accused, as also the receipt of money by the accused/respondent no.1 in her bank account remained undisputed. Further submission of Mr. Ramchandran was that once the aforesaid factors were established, the complainant was not required to prove its debt, in the manner it is required to be proved in a civil suit and that in a situation of this nature, the burden of proof shifted to the respondent/accused. It was for the accused to show the preponderance of probabilities that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a valid debt and mere denial of existence of debt would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption of guilt cast upon the accused. The authorities relied on for these propositions were:- i. Oriental Bank of Commerce -vs- Prabodh Kumar Tewari [2022 INSC 832] ii. Kalamani Tex and Another -vs- P. Balasubramanian [(2021) 5 SCC 283] iii. Shree Daneshwari Traders -vs- Sanjay Jain and Another [(2019) 16 SCC 83] iv. Uttam Ram -vs- Devinder Singh Hudan and Another [(2019) 10 SCC 287] v. Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar -vs- Shivkumar Kanhiyala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the aforesaid two provisions of 1881 Act, the jurisdictional facts had to be established by complainant/petitioner and any lacuna in the evidence of the complainant would strike at the root of the complaint of this nature. He relied on the judgment in the case of John K. Abraham -vs- Simon C. Abraham and Another [(2014) 2 SCC 236]. 11. We are dealing with a case where the First Appellate Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ongoing through the analysis of evidence, acquitted the accused/respondent no.1. The acquittal was further upheld by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the 1973 Code. The whole question involved in this proceeding is as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if it was so, then whether the accused/respondent no.1 was able to rebut the presumption in terms of Section 118 read with Section 139 of the 1881 Act. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Pratap Narain Singh -vs- State of U.P. [(1991) 2 SCC 623] the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with concurrent findings of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
