Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 4042
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Dr. Vipin Chandra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Harikant Kori – Respondent
ACQA No.97 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vivek Singhal
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Singh
Presumption of liability in cheque transactions mandates clarity in presentation and response timelines, ensuring justice in cases of dishonor.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 139 - Acquittal appeal against a judgment acquitting the accused of charges under the NI Act - The appellant provided evidence of cheque dishonor but the Trial Court acquitted on findings contrary to law; the Apex Court principles reiterated established the obligation to present cheques within valid timeframes. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
(B) Cheque - Dishonor - Timeliness of presenting cheques baring any applicable limits - Findings highlighted misinterpretation regarding the period of cheque validity and presentation leading to the false acquittal. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed payment under an agreement for the sale of a plot, which resulted in the issuance of a dishonored cheque upon the accused’s failure to return payments made.
Findings of Court:
The evidence established the dishonor of the cheque, countering finding the Trial Court's stance regarding the presentation period.
Issues: Key issues included the validity of cheque presentation timing and proper identification of debt liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and found appeal justified, overturning the acquittal due to misinterpretation of the law.
Result: Appeal allowed, conviction upheld with a penalty of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the appellant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case summary of the financial agreement leading to cheque issuance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the trial court’s misinterpretation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observations highlight the implications of timely cheque presentation. (Para 10 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. final ruling to overturn acquittal for established liability. (Para 16) |
1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.920/2008, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused/respondent proposed to sale plot bearing PH No.104, situated at Dumartalab, Tatibandh, Raipur to the complainant/appellant, to which the complainant agreed to purchase and he was required to pay Rs.1600/- per month in installment for 24 months and in total he was required to pay Rs.38,400/-. The complainant paid 16 installments of Rs.1600/- and one installment of Rs.2100/- and in total he paid Rs.30,900/- but because of the failure of the scheme, the accused was required to return back the above mentioned paid amount to the complainant, on which the accused issued a cheque of ICICI Bank Raipur Branch Choubey Colony, Raipur bearing Cheque No.049214 of Rs.11000/- in favour of the complainant on 20-09-2003, which the complainant produced it before the bank at Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon on 20-03-2004, but due to insufficiency of balance in the aforesaid account, the cheque was dishonoured on 25-03-2004 and the same was informed to the complainant. On dishonourement of the cheque, the complainant sent a notice to the accused through his legal advisor on 12-04-2004 claiming the cheque amount, which was duly received by the accused on 15-04-2004 and when within 15 days amount was not paid by the accused, the complainant was compelled to file a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The prosecution examined witnesses and exhibited documents and the statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. The defense also examined one witness in his defense and exhibited one document.
4. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent of the charges punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of acquittal is bad in law as well as facts on record. The learned Trial Court misinterpreted the provision of Section 138 of the NI Act. The learned Trial Court wrongly concluded that the complainant had received the cheque dated 20-09-2003 and he produced it before the bank on 20-03-2004 which is more than 60 days, hence the cheque was produced after the provided period of 60 days as there is delay of only one day. The learned Trial Court wrongly relying upon the statement of D.W.1 (Assistant Manager of Reserve Bank of India, Raipur) has held that the validity of cheque has expired. The cheque was not containing the validity date in itself, hence it ought to have been produced within reasonable period of time, which has very well been done by the complainant. The Trial Court erred in understanding the fact that the Bank had not denied to accept the cheque on the ground of validity when it was produced before it. Thus, it reveals that the cheque was well within it's validity period. The learned Trial Court taking the hypothetical view dismissed the complaint of appellant and thereby acquitted the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal may kindly be set aside.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi vs State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 759 and the order passed by this Court in the m
