Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
V.K.SADANANDAN – Appellant
Versus
WAYANAD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1525 OF 2017 | Crl.A NO.109 OF 2015 | ST NO.2349 OF 2013
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a challenge to the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), where the accused issued a dishonored cheque after allegedly failing to repay a loan from a bank (!) .
The facts establish that the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 from the bank, which was supposed to be repaid in installments. The accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,79,628 to discharge this liability, but the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds (!) (!) .
The trial court found the accused guilty of offence under Section 138, and this conviction was upheld in part by the appellate court, which also modified the sentence to simple imprisonment until the court's rising and a fine payment (!) .
The accused argued that the evidence did not sufficiently prove that the cheque was issued to discharge a debt, citing discrepancies in the loan account numbers and the date of loan receipt, and contended that the cheque was misused, as it was obtained in 2006 but the loan was taken in 2010 (!) .
The prosecution relied on the bank officials' testimonies and documents such as the loan application and passbook, which indicated the loan was taken in 2010, supporting the case that the cheque was issued in relation to this loan (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that the accused did not produce evidence to substantiate his claim that the cheque was misused or that the loan was repaid and closed. The absence of any complaint or stop memo regarding misuse further weakened his defense (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act favored the complainant, especially since the accused did not dispute his signature or possession of the cheque, and the evidence supported the issuance of the cheque for the loan in question (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the lower courts properly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction was justified. The sentence was also deemed appropriate, with the accused granted additional time to pay the fine until 31.03.2026 (!) (!) .
The revision petition was dismissed, with the accused required to appear before the court on 31.03.2026 to receive the sentence, and the period for paying the fine was extended accordingly (!) .
Overall, the judgment emphasizes the importance of the statutory presumptions in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act and highlights that discrepancies in loan account details do not necessarily rebut these presumptions unless supported by concrete evidence from the accused (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with any specific aspect of this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under section 138 for cheque dishonor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence evaluation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's discussion on evidence and statutory presumptions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. affirmation of lower courts' findings. (Para 13) |
ORDER
The challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the NI Act.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No. 2349 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–II, Mananthavady. He stood trial before that court for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. The case of the complainant, which is a banking institution, is that the accused had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from it, as per loan account No.TRDM19/09 by agreeing to repay the loan, by way of monthly installments. But the accused failed to pay the loan as agreed. Later, on 10.06.2013, the accused executed and issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 10.06.2013, for Rs.1,79,628/- to discharge the liability. But when the cheque was presented for collection, it got dishonoured for the reason that ‘funds are insufficient’. The statutory notice issued also did not evoke any response. Hence, the complainant approached the trial court by filing the afore complaint.
4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 138 of the NI Act. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,79,628/- under of the NI Act, with a default clause. The fine amount was also directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) CrPC.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No. 109/2015 before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta. By judgment dated 28.09.2017, the said court allowed the appeal in part and, while upholding the conviction, modified the sentence to one of simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,79,628/-, under Section 138 of the NI Act, with a default clause.
6. Heard Sri.Santharam P, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the trial court and the appellate court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that the complainant has failed to prove that Ext. P2 cheque has been issued to discharge the liability incurred in the loan transaction, as alleged. He submitted that even though, going by the complaint, the accused had availed a loan as per Loan Account No. TRDM 19/09, Ext. P8 loan application produced by the complainant would show that the loan account number is not 19/09, but 18/09 -10. He also submitted that, as per Ext. D1 passbook, again there is a change in the loan account number and it mentions 20/09 -10. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the complainant has failed in even discharging the initial burden to prove that the accused had availed a loan as alleged and that Ext. P2 cheque has been issued to discharge the said liability. He further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd. , [ 1967 KHC 624 ], contended that, merely because a statement of account is produced by the complainant, it cannot be presumed that the amount stated therein has in fact been advanced to the accused. He also contended that the cheque which was issued by the accused in the year 2006, when he had availed a loan from the complainant, has been misused in this case.
8. Per contra, the counsel for the first respondent supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He submi
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
