Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Panchanan Sasmal - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2044 of 2012
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction under Section 138 - 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds. The court also referred to Section 139 of the Act, which presumes that the cheques were issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. The court highlighted the presumption under Section 139 and its application in the case, emphasizing the importance of proving the contrary to rebut the presumption.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for issuing dishonored cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the cheques were issued in discharge of a loan, while the petitioner claimed they were issued as security against the loan transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the presumption under Section 139 and the petitioner's failure to rebut it. The court also noted the evidence of business transactions and the petitioner's admission of issuing the cheques, leading to the conclusion that the cheques were issued in discharge of a liability.
Issues: The issues revolved around the purpose of issuing the cheques - whether for discharge of debt or as security against the loan transaction, and the petitioner's liability to make payment against the cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the evidence of business transactions, and the petitioner's admission of issuing the cheques, leading to the conclusion that the cheques were issued in discharge of a liability.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to make payment of the debt and compensation to the complainant.
JUDGMENT
ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2012 passed by learned additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Haldia in Criminal appeal No. 734 of 2011, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 13.6.2011 passed by learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, in C.R. Case No. 146 of 2006 under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments act, where the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument act and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.6,00000/- to the complainant.
2. The fact of the case leading to this criminal revision is that the Opposite Party no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging inter alia, that the petitioner as a partner of Prasenjit Hardware had taken a loan of Rs.6,15,676/- from him and the petitioner in discharge of such liability issued cheque bearing number 0018310 dated 19.2.2005 for Rs. 4,00000/-in favour of the complainant which was dishonoured on being presented to the payee's bank. The petitioner thereafter on 31.1.2006 issued a cheque bearing number 0018310 for Rs.4,00,000/- and another cheque bearing number 0018309 dated 1.2.2006 for Rs.2,15,676/- in favour of the complainant. Both the cheques on being presented were dishonoure due to insufficient fund. a demand notice was issued and delivered to the petitioner on 4.3.2006. as the petitioner failed to make any payment against the demand made by the complainant, a complaint was filed before the Court of learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia on 29.3.2006 which was registered as C.R. Case No. 146 of 2006.
3. The substance of accusation was stated to the petitioner and on his pleading not guilty, trial commenced. Opposite party no.2/the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and the petitioner examined himself as D.W. 1. Documents in the case were marked as Exbt 1 to Exbt 8/2. The cheque have been marked as Exbt. 3,5 and 6. The Return memos have been marked as 'Exbt. 4 and 7 and the Demand Notice as 'exbt 8, the postal receipt as Exbt. 8/1 and a/D Card as Exbt. 8/2. Documents produced by accused have been marked as Exbt. a to Exbt. G. DW-1 in his evidence has deposed that he has a Cash Credit account with the Central Bank of India in the name of Prasenjit Hardware being account no. CC-867. In the year 2004 during august to September there was an overdrafts of Rs. 6,00000/- from his account and as he applied for loan, the Bank Manager requested him to deposit Rs. 4,00000/-. He has admitted that at the relevant time complainant was present in the room and he offered to accept a loan of Rs. 4,00000/- in order to deposit the same in the bank account of the accused petitioner. DW-1 also deposed that the complainant issued cheque bearing No. 259 of Rs. 4,00000/- in his favour. During his examination under section 313 of the Cr. P.C the petitioner admitted having issued a cheque of Rs. 4,00000/- in favour of the petitioner and that he received the Demand notice issued by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2.
4. Fulfilling all formalities and after considering the evidence on record, learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. act and sentenced him to S.I. for one day, till rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- within one month from the date of the order.
5. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present petitioner filed Criminal appeal No. 734 of 2011 which was disposed of by the learned additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 2nd Court, Haldia, Purba Medinipur by his judgment and order dated 28.3.2012. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal on contest without any cost and confirm
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the importance of proving the contrary to rebut the pres....
Point of Law : To ensure due payment to the drawee of a cheque, the court trying the offence is empowered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to impose a sentence of imprisonment which....
Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceabl....
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
The presumption of a debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act is a significant legal principle, which places the burden on the accused to prove the contrary when a cheque is dishonored.
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
