2021 Supreme(SC) 69

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
M/S. KALAMANI TEX & ANR – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
P. BALASUBRAMANIAN – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 123 of 2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1876 of 2018]
Decided on : 10-02-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) High Court ought to have compelling reasons to tinker with an order of acquittal and no such interference would be warranted when there were to be two possible conclusions.
(2) Dishonour of cheque – Provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of cheque amount.
(3) Dishonour of cheque – Statute mandates that once signature(s) of accused on cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal merely on formation of an opinion different than that of trial Court – High Court ought to have compelling reasons to tinker with an order of acquittal and no such interference would be warranted when there were to be two possible conclusions – On a similar analogy, powers of this Court under Article 136 of Constitution also do not encompass reappreciation of entirety of record merely on premise that High Court has convicted appellants for first time in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction – While entertaining an appeal by way of special leave, there shall not ordinarily be an attempt to reappreciate evidence on record unless decision(s) under challenge are shown to have committed a manifest error of law or procedure or conclusion reached is ex-facie perverse. (Paras 12 and 13)

(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 read with Sections 118 and 139 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Dishonour of cheque – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Trial Court completely overlooked provisions and failed to appreciate statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA – Statute mandates that once signature(s) of accused on cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative – In such a situation, obligation shifts upon accused to discharge presumption imposed upon him – Once 2nd Appellant had admitted his signatures on cheque and Deed, trial Court ought to have presumed that cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt – Trial Court fell in error when it called upon Complainant-Respondent to explain circumstances under which appellants were liable to pay – Such approach of trial Court was directly in teeth of established legal position and amounts to a patent error of law – Defence raised by appellants does not inspire confidence or meet standard of ‘preponderance of probability’ – In absence of any other relevant material, High Court did not err in discarding appellants’ defence and upholding onus imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA – Provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of cheque amount – There needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum – Respondent, in any case, is entitled to receive cheque amount of Rs.11.20 lakhs which appellant has already deposited with Registry of this Court – Appellant No.2 shall not be required to undergo awarded sentence. (Paras 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

M/s. Kalamani Tex (Appellant No.1) and its managing partner–B. Subramanian (Appellant No.2) are in appeal challenging judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the order of acquittal of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur was reversed and the appellants have been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Consequently, Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Short question which falls for our consideration is whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.?

Findings of Court:

Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business relationship between the parties, we are of the opinion that defence raised by the appellants does not inspire confidence or meet standard of ‘preponderance of probability’. In the absence of any other relevant material, it appears to us that the High Court did not err in discarding the appellants’ defence and upholding the onus imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA.

Result : Appeal dismissed.