2022 Supreme(SC) 325
K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
Tedhi Singh – Appellant
Versus
Narayan Dass Mahant – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Sangeeta Bharti, Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Ajay Marwah, Tapan Masta, Ayush Gupta, Advocates
Judgement Key Points
Case Summary: Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant (Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2022)
Key Holdings on Section 138/139 NI Act
- Accused may rebut presumption under Section 139 by establishing no consideration was received; only a probable defence needs to be shown, based on preponderance of probabilities. [1000755380001] (!) (!) (!) [1000755380006]
- Probable defence can be raised via accused's evidence (e.g., witnesses/documents), cross-examination of complainant, or inconsistencies in complainant's materials/circumstances. (!) [1000755380008]
- Courts must evaluate totality of evidence to assess if probable defence exists; not necessary for accused to testify personally. (!) [1000755380008][1000755380009]
Facts
- Complainant alleged advancing Rs.7 lakhs loan to accused (friend) in August 2011; cheque dishonoured. [1000755380001][1000755380003]
- Accused examined bank officers (DW1-4) to challenge complainant's financial capacity (e.g., bank statements showing limited funds). [1000755380001][1000755380003][1000755380007]
- Accused claimed cheque book/signed cheque lost (via DW5, his son); no police/bank complaint filed, no denial of signature. [1000755380005][1000755380009]
- Trial court convicted (1-year SI + Rs.7 lakhs compensation); affirmed by Sessions Judge & High Court (S.397 CrPC revision dismissed). [1000755380001]
Supreme Court Findings
- Upheld conviction: No probable defence established (e.g., reply notice admitted friendship, no prior challenge to capacity; loss claim unsubstantiated). Three courts' findings not interfered with under Art.136, absent palpable error/miscarriage of justice. [1000755380005][1000755380009][1000755380010][1000755380011]
- Noted High Court overlooked purpose of DW1-4 but overall evidence insufficient for acquittal. [1000755380007]
Relief Granted (Appeal Partly Allowed)
- Vacated 1-year imprisonment; substituted with fine of Rs.5,000/- (deposit in 1 month; default → 1-month SI). [1000755380011][1000755380012]
- Additional Rs.15,000/- compensation to respondent (deposit in 4 weeks). Rs.7 lakhs (cheque-related) already deposited. [1000755380011][1000755380012] (!)
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant calls in question the judgment of the High Court by which it dismissed the Criminal Revision No.129 of 2018 filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) against the order of the Sessions Judge by which the Court in turn affirmed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found the appellant guilty of having committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act.’). The appellant stands sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Further, the appellant is called upon to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs.
3. The complaint of the respondent was based on the allegation that in the month of August, 2011 the appellant was in urgent need of money and out of friendship he gave a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs and the cheque given by the appellant was dishonored. In the trial, following the complaint the appellant examined DW-1 to DW-4. They are Officers of four Banks. This was done by the appellant in an attempt at putting up what can be described in the words of the learned counsel for the appellant ‘a
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
