2008 Supreme(SC) 54

2008(1) Supreme 306
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Krishna Janardhan Bhat — Petitioner
versus
Dattatraya G. Hegde — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 518 of 2006
Decided on : 11-01-2008

important point
Important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced.

Headnote:(a)Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 118(b) – The courts below committed a serious error in proceeding on the basis that for proving the defence the accused is required to step into the witness box, and unless he does so he would not be discharging his burden. (Para 22)

       (b)Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – Burden of proof – An accused need not examine himself for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute – He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records – An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence – Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. (Paras 22 and 23)

       (1999) 3 SCC 35 – Relied upon.

       ©Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – Burden of proof – Whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ – Such inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. (Para 25)

       (d)Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 118(b) – A statutory presumption has an evidentiary value It is not necessary for the accused to step into the witness box to rebut a presumption – In a case where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration – Once the accused is found to discharge his initial burden, it shifts to the complainant.(Para 26)

       (2006) 6 SCC 39 – Relied upon.

       (e)Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 118(b) and 139 – The courts below erred in not considering the probability of the complainant’s advancing a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on mere asking and that too without keeping any documentary proof – Similarly appellant issuing a cheque knowing fully well that he did not have any sufficient funds is difficult to believe. (Para 29)

       2007 (12) SCALE 96; JT 2007 (13) SC 222 – Relied upon.

       (f)Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 139 – Important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced – High Court wrongly refused to entertain the revision petition. (Paras 34 and 35)

       (2001) 6 SCC 16; (2001) 8 SCC 458; (2004) 10 SCC 699; (2005) 5 SCC 294; (2007) 1 SCC 70 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case:

       1.Appellant and one R.G. Bhat were jointly running a business in the name and style of Vinaya Enterprises at Hubli together. Appellant executed a Power of Attorney in Bhat’s favour.

       2. Allegedly, the appellant had handed over four blank cheques to the said constituted attorney for meeting the expenses of the business. The counter foil of the cheque books was also allegedly filled in by Shri R.G. Bhat. The cheque bearing No. 044483 was shown to have been a self drawn one for a sum of Rs. 1500/-.

       3. Disputes and differences having arisen between the appellant and the said R.G. Bhat in connection with running of the said business, the power of attorney granted in his favour was cancelled by the appellant. The cancellation was also notified to the public at large.

       4.On the premise that the respondent advanced a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the appellant on 14.6.1998 and the latter on his own went to his house on 20.7.1998 to return the loan by an account payee cheque which having been dishonoured when presented; a complaint petition was filed.

       6. Prior thereto, a notice was sent on 27.8.1998 which was allegedly served on the appellant on 5.9.1998. He on that day itself sent a reply alleging in substance that the complainant had been colluding with R.G. Bhat in regard thereto.

       7. The Trial Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months and further directed payment of compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 28.7.2004.

       8. The High Court, however, on a revision petition filed by the appellant, partly allowed the same by reducing the substantive sentence to one week.

       Findings of the Court:

       By wrong application of the provisions, the High Court refused to entertain the revision petition.

       Result : Appeal allowed.