Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
P. Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
P. Bhuvanesan - Respondent
Crl. R.C(MD)No. 539 of 2017
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonoured Cheque - The court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to the dishonour of a cheque issued to repay a loan, and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent and issued a cheque to repay the amount. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, leading to a legal complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to imprisonment. The higher court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to three months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had borrowed the loan and issued the cheque, and whether he had rebutted the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent had discharged the burden of proof under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 favored the respondent. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption and provide evidence to substantiate his version.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. However, it provided an opportunity for the petitioner to set aside the conviction and sentence by paying the cheque amount to the respondent by a specified date.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur in C.A.No.30 of 2017, dated 03.04.2017 in partly allowing the Judgment in C.C.No.142 of 2015, dated 07.11.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur and set aside the same.)
1. This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur in C.A.No.30 of 2017, dated 03.04.2017 in partly allowing the Judgment in C.C.No.142 of 2015, dated 07.11.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur.
2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The crux of the complaint is that on 10.02.2015, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a hand loan from the respondent for his urgent needs and family expenses. Thereafter, in order to discharge the liability, the petitioner issued a cheque for the said amount. The cheque was presented for collection, and it was returned ''dishonoured'' for the reason that the ''funds insufficient''. Immediately, the respondent caused legal notice and lodged the complaint.
4. On the side of the respondent, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and on the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no document was marked.
5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found him guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.30 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur and the same was also partly allowed by the Appellate Court thereby confirming the conviction and reduced the sentence alone from one year Simple Imprisonment to three months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that except the cheque, no documents were produced in order to prove the alleged loan borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent. There is absolutely no illegally enforceable debt between the petitioner and the respondent herein. In fact, the petitioner never borrowed any loan from the respondent and never issued any cheque towards any illegally enforceable debt. The alleged cheque was misused by the respondent and initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent discharged his burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as such, the Courts below rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, while suspending the sentence, this Court, by order dated 14.07.2017 imposed a condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the petitioner did not comply with the same. Hence, the respondent filed a petition in Crl.M.P(MD)No.7116 of 2019 to dismiss the suspension sentence application and the petitioner had taken time and even till today, failed to comply with the same. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent and in order to repay the said amount, he issued cheque. The cheque was presented for collection and returned dishonoured for the reasons ''funds insufficient''. Therefore, the respondent caused legal notice and the same was duly received by the petitioner, which was marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Even after receipt of the same, the petitione
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the payee in case of dishonour of a cheque, and the burden of proof lies on the drawer to rebut the presumption.
The duty of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the limited scope of revision for interference with lower courts' judgments.
Accused cannot rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act without entering witness box.
When the issuance of a cheque and the signature thereon are not denied, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, shifting the burden to the accused to pr....
The admission of issuing a cheque creates a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which must be rebutted by the accused to avoid liability.
Conditional acquittal in cheque bounce case upon settling remaining amount after partial payment.
The burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The main legal point established is that once the signature and execution of a cheque are admitted, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issu....
In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused admits the issuance of the cheque but fails to produce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of a legally en....
Post-conviction settlement of cheque amount justifies setting aside conviction under Section 138 NI Act.
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
