2018 (7) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT

Validity of Conviction order set aside by High Court - dishonor of cheque due to insufficiency of funds - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - rebutting of presumption - High Court held that the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability - Held that:- The trial court after considering the evidence on record has returned the finding that the cheque was issued by the accused which contained his signatures. Although, the complainant led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove his case, no evidence was led by the accused to rebut the presumption regarding existence of debt or liability of the accused.

The High Court has not returned any finding that order of conviction based on evidence on record suffers from any perversity or based on no material or there is other valid ground for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no valid basis for the High Court to hold that the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability. The appellant has proved the issuance of cheque which contained signatures of the accused and on presentation of the cheque, the cheque was returned with endorsement “insufficient funds”. Bank official was produced as one of the witnesses who proved that the cheque was not returned on the ground that it did not contain signatures of the accused rather it was returned due to insufficient funds - the judgment of High Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

Whether there was any doubt with regard to the existence of the debt or liability of the accused? - Section 139 of the Act, 1881 - Held that:- In the present case, the trial court as well as the Appellate Court having found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused and it was given to the appellant to present in the Bank of the presumption under Section 139 was rightly raised which was not rebutted by the accused. The accused had not led any evidence to rebut the aforesaid presumption.

The High Court committed error in setting aside the order of conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No sufficient ground has been mentioned by the High Court in its judgment to enable it to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside the conviction.

The judgment of the High Court is set aside and judgment of trial court as affirmed by the Appellate Court is restored - appeal allowed.