2025 (6) TMI 748 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - main challenge raised by the petitioner was that the impugned cheque was admittedly issued in discharge of a time barred debt and hence the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. HELD THAT - There are no material irregularity or legal impropriety warranting the interference of this Court in revision. The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in revision is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri 1999 (2) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court held that Ordinarily therefore it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. As far as the present case is concerned it is not possible to say that the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are untenable in law glaringly unreasonable or grossly erroneous. Nor could it be said that the decisions of the courts below are based on unacceptable evidence or that admissible evidence were ignored for arriving at the findings against the petitioner. The sentence awarded by the courts below is also perfectly in order. Conclusion - There are no no material irregularity illegality or miscarriage of justice in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The evidence was properly considered and the conclusions were neither perverse nor unreasonable. The sentence imposed was also appropriate and in accordance with law. The revision petition stands dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when the cheque in question was issued towards the discharge of a time-barred debt.

- Whether the omission by the complainant to specify the exact date when the cheque was handed over to him materially affects the credibility of the prosecution case.

- Whether there exists any material irregularity, legal impropriety, or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque issued in discharge of a time-barred debt

The legal framework governing this issue is grounded in the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which penalizes the dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds or other reasons. The petitioner contended that since the debt was time-barred, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted.

The Court referred to the binding precedent set by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in K.K.Ramakrishnan v. Parthasarathi and Others, which held that prosecution under Section 138 is maintainable even if the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a time-barred debt. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent and judicial precedents emphasizing that the limitation applicable to civil recovery of debt does not bar criminal liability under Section 138.

The courts below correctly applied this principle, rejecting the petitioner's argument. The Court found no anomaly or impropriety in their conclusions. The legal principle established is that the limitation for civil claims does not preclude prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour.

Issue 2: Effect of omission to state the exact date of handing over the cheque

The petitioner argued that the complainant failed to disclose the precise date when the cheque was handed over, which allegedly undermines the prosecution's case. The Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant (PW1) had sufficiently narrated the factual matrix, including the loan transaction in 1991, the petitioner's promise to include the complainant as a business partner, the failure to do so, and the subsequent issuance of the cheque dated 30.04.2003 pursuant to a mediation agreement.

The Court held that the omission of the exact date of delivery of the cheque was not a material lapse affecting the credibility of the prosecution. The complainant had provided adequate particulars to establish the transaction and the issuance of the cheque, which is the crux of the offence under Section 138. Therefore, this omission was not fatal to the prosecution's case.

Issue 3: Scope of interference under revisional jurisdiction

The Court extensively reviewed the settled legal principles governing the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 to 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It relied on authoritative Supreme Court decisions:

• In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri, it was held that the High Court ordinarily should not reappreciate evidence already evaluated by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge unless there is a glaring miscarriage of justice.
• In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, the Supreme Court clarified that revisional power is not equivalent to appellate power and interference is justified only if the findings are perverse, untenable in law, grossly erroneous, or where relevant material is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
• In Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, it was reiterated that the revisional court must not set aside an order merely because another view is possible, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

Applying these principles, the Court found no material irregularity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The evidence was properly considered, and the conclusions were neither perverse nor unreasonable. The sentence imposed was also appropriate and in accordance with law.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "There is absolutely no anomaly or impropriety in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court that a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable even if the cheque had been issued towards the discharge of a time barred debt."

- "The omission in mentioning the exact date when the cheque was handed over to the first respondent cannot be said to be a serious lapse affecting the credibility of the case of the first respondent."

- "Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."

- "Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, 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 decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."

- "It is not possible to say that the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are untenable in law, glaringly unreasonable or grossly erroneous. Nor could it be said that the decisions of the courts below are based on unacceptable evidence, or that admissible evidence were ignored for arriving at the findings against the petitioner. The sentence awarded by the courts below is also perfectly in order."

The Court thus affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and dismissed the revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact and law by the courts below.