Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 413 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - blank cheques were issued to the complainant in repayment of the loan transaction - legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of presumption - burden of prove not discharged - HELD THAT:- It is well settled law that a revision against concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity upset factual findings arrived at by the trial court. It is not for the revisional court to re-analyse and re- interpret the evidence on record in a case where the trial court and appellate court have come to a probable conclusion. On going through the concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that the both the trial court and appellate court concurrently construed the presumptions under Section 139 of the Act in accordance with law. Unless the contrary is proved, it is presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In the case at hand, the accused has no case that he has not signed the cheque or parted with under any threat or coercion. That apart, the accused has no case that unfilled cheque had been lost irrecoverably or stolen. Although DW1 was examined before the trial court, he had no direct knowledge regarding the transaction between the parties. The accused failed to prove in the trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. In Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (2) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court held that in view of Section 139 of the Act read with Section 118 of the Act thereof, the Court has to presume that the cheque has been issued for discharging a debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to prove that the blank cheques were issued to the complainant in repayment of the loan transaction. The burden has not been discharged. It has come out in evidence that the prosecution was initiated against the accused by the complainant in accordance with the scheme of the N.I.Act - the complainant has succeeded in proving that the accused borrowed an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- from the complainant and issued Ext.P1 cheque for a legally enforceable debt. This Court is of the view that the trial court rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act - Revision allowed in part.
|