Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
M. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
K. Pachiyammal – Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1467 of 2019
Decided On : 15-06-2023
Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction under Section 138 - 138 - The court discussed the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused's failure to provide evidence to rebut the presumption led to the confirmation of the conviction by both the trial and appellate courts.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence presented by the complainant, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and therefore, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence presented by the complainant, the accused's failure to provide evidence to rebut the presumption, and the application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The accused's failure to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act led to the confirmation of the conviction by both the trial and appellate courts.
Final Decision: The judgment and sentence passed by the lower courts were confirmed, and the criminal revision case was dismissed. The accused was ordered to serve the remaining period of the sentence in prison.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for records and set aside the judgment passed in CA.No.137/2019 dated 22.11.2019 by the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur and the judgment passed in STC No.175 of 2016 dated 21.06.2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur.)
1. Convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The respondent-K.Pachiammal filed STC No.175 of 2016 against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is a private complaint.
3. During the trial, on the side of the complainant, the complainant examined herself as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked through her. The cheque bearing No.826904 dated 29.01.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Mettur Branch, has been marked as Ex.P1; Bank challan dated 29.01.2016, has been marked as Ex.P2; Cheque return memo dated 29.01.2019 has been marked as Ex.P3; Legal notice along with RPAD receipt dated 04.02.2016 has been marked as Ex.P4; and Postal Acknowledgement Card dated 06.02.2016 has been marked as Ex.P5. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence, has been let in.
4. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence found that the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted and accordingly, laid the conviction against the revision petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the private complainant within a period of two months from 21.06.2019, failing which, he has to undergo default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The appellate Court also confirmed the same and hence, the revision.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused could contend that the trial Court has erred in invoking the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the private complainant has no sufficient means to lend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also stated that she has not produced any document for pledging of jewels for lending the loan.
6. No representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent/private complainant.
7. After perusing the evidence of PW1, which is extracted by the trial Court at paragraph Nos.17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the private complainant is an illiterate lady and she does not know to write and the accused is an educated officer working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The cheque in issue i.e. Ex.P1 admittedly belongs to the accused herein. For Ex.P4-legal notice, which was served upon the revision petitioner/accused on 06.02.2016 vide Ex.P5- RPAD Receipt, for the reasons best known, he has not issued any reply notice.
8. Be that as it may, during the cross examination, the revision petitioner/accused, disputed the signature. Once, the accused disputed the signature, in all reasonable probability he should have filed an application for comparing the signature in Ex.P1-Cheque with the admitted signature. However, for the reasons best known, he has not taken any steps either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court and hence, both the Courts have rightly observed that as the accused denied the signature, the burden is upon him to produce the admitted signature and seek for an expert opinion. Having failed to do so, they have drawn an adverse inference that disputing the signature is for the formal sake of denial.
9. In the instant case, Ex.P1 is admittedly the cheque of the revison petitioner/accused and as observed above, he is an educated officer working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In the chief examination, PW1 has spoken about lending money to the revision petitioner/accused, filling of the cheque and that the revision petitioner/accused has presented the accused, Therefore, the duty is cast upon the shoulder
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, and the failure to do so can lead to conviction.
The presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque when the execution is not denied, and the need for positive evidence to prove lack of means of the respondent.
The burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, once the execution of a cheque is admitted or proven, a presumption under Section 139 arises in favour of the complainant, and the burden shifts to t....
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....
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
