Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M. R. SHAH, JJ.
APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. – Appellant(s)
Versus
SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS & ORS. – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2020 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2020
Decided On : 14-02-2020
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Issuance of cheque and signature thereon not disputed by accused - Transaction between the parties also not disputed - Presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 - After dishonor of earlier cheques accused-respondents again issuing consolidated cheque - Dishonoured for ‘Stop Payment’ - Courts wrongly acquitting the accused-respondent. (Para 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
In all these three appeals the trial court had acquitted the accused of charges u/s 138 NI Act. The High Court has upheld the judgment of the trial court.
Finding of the Court;
Courts below have wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent.
Result: Appeals allowed.
The document indicates that when a complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability arises in favor of the complainant once the issuance of the cheque and the signature are admitted by the accused. However, this presumption is rebuttable, meaning the accused has the opportunity to lead evidence to challenge or disprove the existence of such debt or liability, including the complainant's financial capacity to lend the amount.
Specifically, the accused can demonstrate that the entire amount was paid or that the cheque was issued for a different purpose, such as security, and not in discharge of a debt. If the accused contests the claim, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the existence of the debt, which may include establishing the complainant’s financial capacity to lend the amount in question.
In the absence of evidence from the accused to rebut the presumption, and without proof that the entire amount was paid or that the cheque was issued for a different purpose, the courts are inclined to treat the presumption as valid, and the complainant's claim as supported by the evidence. Conversely, if the accused successfully demonstrates that the debt does not exist or that the amount was paid, the presumption can be rebutted, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2020
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. L.P. No.258 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said application for leave to appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court acquitting the original accused respondents herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the N. I. Act’) and thereby confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2020
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. L.P. No.259 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said application for leave to appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court acquitting the original accused respondents herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) and thereby confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2020
2. According to the complainant, the appellant is in the business of sale and purchase of Foreign Exchange. That the original accused respondents herein approached the appellant for issuance of Foreign Exchange Currency/USD Travel Currency Card. According to the original complainant appellant herein, a total sum of Rs.19,01,320/ was paid to the accused through VTM (Visa Travel Money Card) which came to be withdrawn by the accused on different days on 10.01.2014, 20.02.2014 and 22.02.2014. According to the complainant, the original accused respondents herein paid Rs.6,45,807/ only leaving a balance of Rs.12,55,513/. According to the complainant, the respondents accused issued four cheques total amounting Rs.9,55,574/, which were issued in favour of the complainant. However, all the aforesaid cheques when presented, came to be dishonoured. According to the complainant thereafter the respondents issued one another cheque bearing No.374941 of Rs.9,55,574/ of the partnership firm namely Shakti International in discharge of the legal liability. According to the complainant when the same cheque was presented the same came to be dishonoured due to “STOP PAYMENT” vide bank memo dated 02.06.2014. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice upon the original accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide notice dated 07.06.2014. Despite the service of the notice, the accused did not make the payment of the cheque amount. Therefore, the original complainant appellant herein filed the complaint before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate also believed that the cheque was issued and the same was returned unpaid with remarks “STOP PAYMENT”. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate believed that the accused Sushil Kumar Sharma admitted his signature on the cheque. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate also believed receipt of the demand notice by the accused persons and nonpayment towards the said cheque. However, thereafter Learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed and held that there is no legal liability as the payment through the card is not established and proved; that the payments are prior to the issuance of the card. Resultantly, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint by judgment and order dated 20.01.2017. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court acquitting the accused, the complainant preferred appeal before the Learned Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Thereafter the complainant filed the appeal before t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
