Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Gopesh Debnath S/o Late Jogesh Debnath – Petitioner
Versus
Manabendra Narayan Dhar S/o Late Manindra Narayan Dhar – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 273 of 2018
Decided On : 27-05-2024
N.I. Act - Cheque Bounce - 138 - 118, 139 - The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay the Cheque amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) along with an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as compensation, total Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) only to the complainant/respondent No. 1, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, issued a cheque to the respondent for Rs. 5,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, leading to the petitioner's conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act, upholding the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139. The petitioner's defense of the lost cheque was disbelieved due to lack of evidence. The court also found the notice served upon the petitioner to be valid, as per the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, finding the petitioner guilty under Section 138. The defense of the lost cheque was disbelieved due to lack of evidence, and the notice served upon the petitioner was deemed valid.
Final Decision: The revision petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent No. 2.
2. In the revision petition, under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely, Shri Gopesh Debnath, has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2017. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar had upheld the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2017, passed in N.?. Case No. 31/2010, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay the Cheque amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) along with an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as compensation, total Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) only to the complainant/respondent No. 1, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition are briefly stated as under:
Then the respondent No. 1/complainant had filed a Complainant Case, being N.I. Case No. 31/2010, against the present petitioner, under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 in the court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. The petitioner on receipt of summon had appeared before the learned trial Court and then the learned trial court had explained the particulars of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, to which the petitioner had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During the course of trial, the respondent No. 1/complainant had adduced as many as five witnesses in support of his case. After closing the evidence of the respondent No. 1, the learned trial court had examined the petitioner under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner had also adduced one witness in support of his defence.
Then hearing arguments of both sides and considering the materials available on record, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, vide its Judgment and Order, dated 11.08.2017, had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, and sentenced him as aforesaid.
Then being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2010, passed in N.I. Case No. 31/2010, by the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C. 1908 before the court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, upon which Criminal Appe
The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act can be upheld, and the defense of a lost cheque must be substantiated with evidence to rebut the presumption.
The accused's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the service of notice of dishonour within the prescribed period led to the Court upholding the conviction and the co....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must provide evidence to counter it; failure to do so results in conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of discharge of debt or liabili....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption of debt under NI Act ss118(a),139; accused's lost cheque plea fails without bank report; revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, upholding conc....
Presumption under NI Act s.139 rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities by probable defence; mere denial insufficient. Complainant need not prove financial capacity unless challenged in demand no....
The presumption under section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof for rebuttal is 'preponderance of probabilities'.
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....
The presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to prove the contrary if the cheque's signature is admitted, which was not done in this case.
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
