Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.
Sri Vittal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sri. N.P. Chandran – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 524 of 2014
Decided On : 10-02-2023
N.I. Act - Cheque Dishonour - Section 138 - 139 - 255(2) - 357(3) - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deal with the liability of the drawer of a cheque and the presumption of discharge of debt or liability. The court also referred to Section 255(2) and 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertain to the power of the trial court to convict and sentence the accused, and the award of compensation to the complainant respectively. The court highlighted the legal principles established in the case law of BIR SINGH VS. MUKESH KUMAR (2019) 4 SCC 197, which emphasized the presumption of liability on the drawer of a cheque unless rebutted with evidence. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and case law, leading to the confirmation of the conviction and sentence of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for dishonour of a cheque issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court convicted the accused, which was affirmed by the appellate court. The accused filed a revision petition challenging the concurrent findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused failed to prove his defense and did not rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on the evidence and legal principles.
Issues: The issues revolved around the dishonour of the cheque, the accused's defense, and the application of Section 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act was not rebutted by the accused, and the findings of the lower courts were based on sound evidence and law. The court emphasized the limited powers of the Revisional Court and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was dismissed, and the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court were confirmed. The accused was directed to deposit the fine amount and the compensation awarded to the complainant.
ORDER
1. Appellant being accused before the Trial Court in C.C.No.551/2008 on the file of JMFC V Court, Mangalore, being aggrieved by the Judgment of his conviction and sentence in the said case as per the Judgment dated 10.10.2011 and the said Judgment of conviction and sentence being affirmed by the I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, in Crl. A. No.194/2011 dated 01.01.2014, has preferred this revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C.
2. For the purpose of convenience, I refer the parties as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief relevant facts up to this revision are as under:
That complainant being respondent in this revision, filed a private complaint in P.C. No.2922/2007 before the JMFC, V Court, Mangaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the revision petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint that accused issued a cheque bearing No.464596 dated 29.10.2007 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Balmatta Road, Mangalore for Rs.85,000/- in favour of the complainant. Towards repayment of the amount due to the complainant. The said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment through his banker, but it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Thereafter, on receipt of the memo from the bank, complainant issued the statutory notice and called upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. On his failure, complainant filed the aforesaid complaint against the accused.
4. The learned Trial Court on filing the private complaint, took cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. Issued process against the accused by registering CC No.551/2008 against the accused. Pursuant to the summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court. He was enlarged on bail.
5. Substance of accusation framed, read out, explained against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the offence against the accused, complainant himself entered the witness box as P.W.1 He got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and closed his evidence. Thereafter, accused was questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the complainant. He denied his complicity in the crime. Submits before the Trial Court to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, he entered the witness box as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4 in support of his defence.
7. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides and on perusal of the documentary and oral evidence, by exercising its power under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-with default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It is further ordered to pay the compensation to the complainant to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- by exercising powers under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
8. This Judgment of conviction and sentence so passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the accused before the I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, by filing Crl.A. No.194/2011. The learned I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, being the appellate court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the Judgment on 01.10.2014 confirming the Judgment passed in C.C. No. by the JMFC, V Court, Mangalore.
9. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, accused has preferred this revision before this Court on the following grounds:
10. That the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are contrary to law and evidence so also probability of the defence of the accused. Thereby, both the Courts erred in holding that the accused failed to discharge his burden of rebuttal proof.
11. It is further stated that as per cont
A signed blank cheque, validly handed over by the accused, attracts the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless the accused provides evidence to the contrary. The burd....
(1) Revisional jurisdiction – Limited power under revisional jurisdiction is to do justice in accordance with principles of criminal jurisprudence and it would not be appropriate for High Court to re....
Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings ....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisi....
Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interfer....
Admission of cheque signature raises NI Act presumptions of debt discharge (ss.118(a),139); accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Security/blank signed cheques attract s.138 liability de....
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
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
