9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1005 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act - rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT - It was laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh 2022 (7) TMI 1455 - SUPREME COURT that the revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda 2018 (7) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any perversity. The learned Courts below had rightly held that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of his legal liability. The complainant stated that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement funds insufficient . The accused did not deny this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The memo of dishonour (CW1/B) shows the reason for dishonour as insufficient funds . There is a presumption of correctness attached to the memo of dishonour under Section 146 of N.I. Act. The accused did not lead any evidence to rebut this presumption and the learned Court below have rightly held that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Hence it was duly proved on record that the accused had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant in discharge of his legal liability. The cheque was dishonoured due to the endorsement of insufficient funds and the accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice of demand. Therefore all the ingredients of Section 138 of N I Act were duly satisfied and the learned Courts below had rightly convicted the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Conclusion - The accused issued the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds the notice of demand was duly served and the accused failed to pay the amount despite receipt of notice. All ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act were fulfilled justifying conviction. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is modified and the sentence of two years imposed by the learned Trial Court is reduced to six months and the default sentence of one year imposed by the learned Trial Court is reduced to three months - Appeal allowed in part.
The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the applicability and interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), read with Section 141 of the NI Act, specifically:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and Rebuttal by Accused The legal framework establishes that Section 139 of the NI Act mandates a presumption that a cheque issued and bearing the signature of the accused is presumed to have been issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Section 118(a) further presumes that every negotiable instrument is made for consideration unless the contrary is proved. The Court relied on authoritative precedents, including Malkeet Singh Gill, Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, Kalamani Tex, APS Forex Services, Triyambak S. Hegde, and Rajesh Jain, which collectively clarify that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence to show the cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability. The accused admitted issuance and dishonour of the cheque but contended that the cheque was issued as security and denied receipt of the notice. However, the accused failed to lead any evidence to rebut the presumption, and mere statements under Section 313 CrPC were held insufficient to discharge the evidential burden. The Court emphasized that the accused must produce evidence to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Application of law to facts showed that the accused's admission of cheque issuance and dishonour, coupled with failure to prove payment or rebuttal, led to the conclusion that the cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability. The plea of issuance as security was unsupported by evidence and therefore rejected. 2. Dishonour of Cheque and Presumption under Section 146 of the NI Act The memo of dishonour was produced, showing the reason as "insufficient funds." The accused did not dispute this fact. Section 146 of the NI Act attaches a presumption of correctness to the memo of dishonour. Since the accused did not lead evidence to rebut this presumption, the Court upheld the finding that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. 3. Service of Notice and Presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act The complainant produced the legal notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, and the accused's signature was on the acknowledgment receipt. The accused denied knowledge of receipt, but the Court applied the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that service was duly effected. The accused did not rebut this presumption with evidence. Thus, the Court held that the notice was validly served on the accused. 4. Conviction and Sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to two years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,60,000, with default imprisonment of one year. The Court upheld the conviction, finding all ingredients of Section 138 satisfied: issuance of cheque for discharge of liability, dishonour due to insufficient funds, receipt of notice, and failure to pay the amount. However, the Court found the sentence of two years to be the maximum permissible but noted that the Trial Court did not assign sufficient reasons for imposing the maximum term. The Court observed that considerations such as breach of trust in the banking system are inherent in the offence and do not justify maximum sentence in every case. Also, there was no evidence that the accused was a habitual offender. Accordingly, the Court reduced the substantive sentence from two years to six months and the default imprisonment from one year to three months, taking into account the prolonged trial period since 2015. Regarding compensation, the Court noted that the amount awarded (Rs. 2,60,000) was slightly less than the cheque amount (Rs. 2,61,994) but found no fault with the compensation awarded, as the complainant had not sought enhancement. 5. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court The Court extensively reviewed the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Malkeet Singh Gill, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and limited to correcting patent errors, jurisdictional errors, or gross perversity. It is not an appellate jurisdiction and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the Court's own view for concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a glaring miscarriage of justice. The Court found no such error or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court and declined to interfere with the conviction on merits. 6. Treatment of Competing Arguments The accused argued that the cheque was not issued to discharge any legal liability, that the notice was not served, and that the evidence was not appreciated holistically. The Court rejected these arguments, noting the accused's admissions, the presumption of service of notice, and the failure to rebut statutory presumptions. The Court also rejected the plea of excessive sentence but reduced it on grounds of proportionality and absence of reasons for maximum sentence. Conclusions The Court concluded that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, the notice of demand was duly served, and the accused failed to pay the amount despite receipt of notice. All ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act were fulfilled, justifying conviction. The revisional jurisdiction was exercised to reduce the sentence imposed by the Trial Court but not to disturb the conviction or findings on merits. The appeal was partly allowed to the extent of modifying the sentence and default imprisonment. Significant Holdings "Section 139 of the NI Act, which takes the form of a 'shall presume' clause, is illustrative of a presumption of law. Because Section 139 requires that the Court 'shall presume' the fact stated therein, it is obligatory for the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established." "The accused is required to lead evidence to rebut such presumption. The accused was required to lead evidence that the entire amount due and payable to the complainant was paid. The story put forward by the accused that the cheques were given by way of security is not believable in the absence of further evidence to rebut the presumption." "The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Unless the finding of the court is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction." "The offence under Section 138 of NI Act is economic in nature and the penal provision is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same." "Where the imprisonment has been awarded as a substantive sentence, the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine cannot exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which the Magistrate is competent to inflict." These holdings reaffirm the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, and the principles governing sentencing under Section 138 of the NI Act and the CrPC.
|
