Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
S. Rachaiah, J.
M.C. Subramanyam Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Sri.Balaji Steel Traders Dealers In Iron – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 100025/2020 C/W Criminal Revision Petition No. 100024/2020 Criminal Revision Petition No. 100026/2020
Decided On : 13-12-2022
Smt. V. Vidya, Advocate, for the Appellant; Sri Y. Laxmikant Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent
The presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Section 139 of the N.I. Act cannot be rebutted unless the contrary is proved by the drawer of the cheque. Judicial admissions play a crucial role in establishing liability and can impact the burden of proof.
Headnote:
N.I. Act - Cheque Bounce - Section 138 - 139 - N.I. Act, Section 138, Section 139 - The court discussed the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and emphasized that the presumption cannot be rebutted unless the contrary is proved by the drawer of the cheque. The court also highlighted the importance of judicial admissions and their impact on the burden of proof. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam was relied upon to emphasize the significance of admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions. The court concluded that the concurrent findings of conviction were justifiable and dismissed the criminal revision petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The accused had purchased steel and cement from the complainant and issued three cheques, all of which were returned due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed complaints, leading to the accused's conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Section 139 of the N.I. Act was not rebutted by the accused. It also emphasized the significance of judicial admissions and upheld the concurrent findings of conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the concurrent findings of conviction, the rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the impact of judicial admissions on the burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the accused to rebut the presumption in favor of the holder of the cheques under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and the significance of judicial admissions in establishing the liability of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petitions were dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Sessions Court were confirmed.
ORDER
1. These criminal revision petitions are connected together for disposal as the accused and the complainant are same in all the three cases.
2. The parties are henceforth referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case;
The complainant was doing business of iron, steel and cement under the name and style as M/s. Shri Balaji Steel Traders. The accused was doing business with the complainant and he maintained a running account with the complainant. The accused in acquaintance with the complainant, had purchased steel and cement on 31.03.2008 to 21.05.2008 for a sum of Rs.5,45,003/- and also availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- in respect of the said transaction. The accused had issued three cheques drawn on Corporation Bank, Ballari, in favor of the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- dated 28.03.2008, Rs,80,000/- dated 07.05.2008 and Rs.2,00,000/- dated 10.06.2008 respectively.
In Crl.RP. No.100025/2020
4. The complainant presented a cheque bearing No.309204 dated 28.03.2008 for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/-through his banker for encashment. The said cheque was returned on 01.08.2008 as 'funds insufficient'. A notice was issued to the accused on 14.08.2008 through R.P.A.D. The accused received the notice, but, neither repaid the amount nor replied the notice. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint on 22.09.2008.
In Crl.RP. No.100026/2020
5. A cheque bearing it's No.312501 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- dated 17.05.2008 was also presented to the bank for encashment. But, this cheque returned with a shara as 'funds insufficient' on 30.07.2008. Notice was issued to the accused on 14.08.2008 and the said notice was served to him. But, he did not reply the same. Hence, a complaint came to be filed on 22.09.2008.
In Crl.RP. No.100024/2020
6. In this case, the complainant presented a cheque bearing its No.325798 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 10.06.2008 for encashment. He received an endorsement dated 04.08.2008 as 'funds insufficient'. Notice was issued on 14.08.2008 and the said notice was served to him. But, he did not reply the same. Hence, a complaint came to be filed on 21.09.2008.
7. In all the three cases, the complainant examined 2 witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On the other hand, the defence has not led any evidence in support of its contention.
8. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in all the three cases, the accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court confirmed the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts, the accused preferred these criminal revision petitions before this Court seeking to set aside the conviction passed in all the three cases.
10. Heard Smt. V. Vidya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
11. Smt. V. Vidya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the facts and the law. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
12. It is further submitted that, the Trial Court acted upon the legal presumption. However, the said legal presumption is a rebuttable. Even though the accused during cross-examination has rebutted the presumption, the same has not been considered by both the Courts.
13. It is further submitted that, Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.15 are the cash credit bills which indicate that certain materials were supplied are produced by PW.1. However, the said bills contain no signature of the person to whom it was delivered. No material is placed before the Court regarding the purchase order placed by the accused for supply of steel and cement.
1
