Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
N.A. Vasantha – Appellant
Versus
K.S. Chandrashekar – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1345 of 2019
Decided On : 13-04-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - CHEQUE DISHONOUR - N.I. ACT SECTIONS 138, 139 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which penalizes the dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds, and Section 139, which creates a presumption that a cheque was issued for a legally recoverable debt. The court interpreted these sections to affirm that the burden of proof lies on the accused to rebut the presumption of debt, which the petitioner failed to do, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner borrowed Rs.1,90,000 from the respondent and issued a cheque for the same amount, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act after the petitioner failed to respond to a legal notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that he only borrowed Rs.22,500 and that the cheque was misused. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act was not successfully rebutted.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had borrowed Rs.1,90,000 from the respondent and whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the issuance of the cheque for a legally recoverable debt was not rebutted by the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the conviction under Section 138 was justified.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision petition by the accused under Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Koppa in C.C.No.349/2015 dtd. 17/11/2018 and the judgment and order dtd. 31/8/2019 passed by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.190/2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this criminal revision petition narrated briefly are: The respondent/complainant had filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act contending that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.1, 90, 000.00 from him on 2/1/2015 for his urgent necessities and towards repayment of the said amount the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.017111 dtd. 15/3/2015 drawn in his favour for a sum of Rs.1, 90, 000.00 The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonoured with a banker's endorsement 'funds insufficient'.
4. The complainant thereafterwords issued a legal notice in compliance of statutory requirement as provided under Sec. 138(b) of N.I. Act. The said notice was duly served on the petitioner on 7/4/2015. Inspite of service of the legal notice, the petitioner had not paid the amount covered under the cheque in question nor had he replied to the said notice. It is under these circumstances, the respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner.
5. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and pleaded not guilty and the respondent/complainant in order to prove his case had examined himself as PW.1 and got marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The petitioner had denied the incriminating circumstances available on record during the course of his Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. statement. He also examined himself as DW.1 in support of his defence. The trial Court thereafter heard the arguments addressed on both sides and by its judgment and order dtd. 17/11/2018 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2, 05, 000.00.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 31/8/2019. It is under these factual background, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had borrowed only a sum of Rs.22, 500.00 from the respondent and the entire borrowed amount was paid with interest to the respondent and the cheque in question which was issued as a security for the said transaction was misused by the respondent. He submits that there is no proof that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.1, 90, 000.00 from the respondent and therefore the Courts below are not justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that the defence raised by the petitioner has not been proved by him by producing any evidence before the Courts below and therefore, the Courts below are justified in convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both sides and also perused the material available on record.
10. The complainant in order to substantiate his case had examined himself as PW.1 and also got marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is the original cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent drawn on Karnataka Bank, Narve Branch, Koppa. The signature found in the said cheque is not seriously disputed by the petitioner and it is also not in dispute that the cheque is drawn on the bank account maintained by the petitioner in Karnataka Bank, Narve Branch. Having reg
The presumption of issuance of a cheque for a legally recoverable debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can only be rebutted by the accused through credible evidence, which the petitioner failed to ....
The presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holds unless rebutted with a probable defense, leading to liability under Sec. 138.
Failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and lack of presenting a probable defense can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The main legal point established is the presumption of an enforceable debt under Section 139 of N.I. Act and the significance of the accused's admission of liability in cheque bounce cases.
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
