Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Anil Dhir & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRR-521-2022 (O & M)
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate,, for the Appellant; , for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the issuance of cheques for the discharge of legally enforceable debts.
Headnote:
N.I. Act - Cheque Dishonour - Sections 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which deals with the dishonour of cheques and the legal liabilities arising from such dishonour. The court also referred to Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which establishes a presumption regarding the issuance of cheques for the discharge of legally enforceable debts. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to uphold the conviction of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque to discharge a legal liability, which was later dishonoured. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that he had issued the cheque for the discharge of his legally enforceable debt. The accused's defense was deemed improbable, and he was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the issuance of the cheque, the legal liability of the accused, and the rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the accused to provide a probable defense and rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
Final Decision: The petitioners' appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral). - The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana was upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Sh. Pankaj Galhotra proprietor M/s Anahita Enterprises filed this complaint alleging inter alia that he was doing the business of manufacturing knitted fabric and the accused No.1-Anil Dhir (petitioner No.1 herein) on behalf of accused No.2-M/s Refine Traders (petitioner No.2 herein) purchased the said goods from the complainant through invoice No.32 dated 20.03.2013 for Rs.4,58,000/- and in order to discharge their legal enforceable liability towards the complainant, the accused No.1/petitioner No.1 on behalf of accused No.2 issued a cheque bearingNo.985877 dated 23.03.2013 for Rs.4,58,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2594, Main Road Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana in favour of the complainant, with the assurance that the same would be encashed on its presentation. However, on presentation of the said cheque by the complainant through his bankers, the cheque was received back dishonoured with the remarks Öpening Balance Insufficient' vide bank memo dated 29.03.2013. Upon this, the complainant got issued the statutory legal notice through his counsel on 25.04.2013 calling upon the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question but despite this, the accused did not pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence, the complainant had been constrained to file a complaint.
3. Based on the evidence, the accused came to be summoned vide order dated 21.05.2013. Notice of accusation was served upon him on 20.02.2014. During the course of post summoning evidence, Pankaj Galhotra-complainant stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and proved on record documents i.e. invoice Ex.C1, cheque Ex.C2, memo Ex. C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 and Ex.C6.
4. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and also pleaded false implication. He stated that the cheque in question had not been issued in order to discharge any legal enforceable liability towards the complainant. In fact the complainant had misused the cheque in question. He did not owe any liability towards the complainant. He alleged that no goods were received by him. Pankaj Galhotra was not the proprietor of Anahita Enterprises. No notice was served upon him. He had not committed any offence and the complainant had forged the cheque Ex.C2.
On being asked whether he wanted to lead any defence evidence, the accused replied in the affirmative but did not examine any witness in his defence.
5. The counsel for the complainant contended during the trial that the accused had issued the cheque in question in discharge of his legal liability. The accused had assured that the cheque would be encashed on presentment but when the said cheque was sent for clearance the same was returned back dishonoured vide memo dated 29.03.2013. Thereafter, a legal notice demanding the payment of the cheque was sent at the correct address of the accused but despite that, the accused failed to make the outstanding payment. On the strength of these facts, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the provisions of Section138 of the N.I. Act are duly attracted in this case and the accused was liable to be punished as per law.
6. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioners argued that the accused was falsely implicated in this case as no goods were supplied by the complainant to the accused. Pankaj Galhotra was not the proprietor of M/s Anahita Enterprises and contends of the cheque were not in hand of accused/petitioners. He argued that the complai
