TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29.01.2016 passed by Special Judge-07 in Crl. Appeal No. 02/15 whereby petitioner s conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) has been upheld. 2. Vide judgment dated 20.04.2015, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and vide order on sentence dated 23.04.2015, he was directed to pay fine of ₹ 25 lacs, out of which ₹ 24 lacs was to be paid to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.PC and the remaining amount of ₹ 1 lakh was to be deposited with the State, and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo SI for three months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was employed with the complainant. The petitioner used to collect the payments on behalf of the complainant from his clients, who was also dealing in the business of real estate as well as shares. As the petitioner used to collect payments at the instance of the complainant, the petitioner was asked to give blank cheque to the complainant as security, which was subsequently filled up by the complainant to initiate the present proceedings. Learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded wherein he admitted that the impugned cheque belonged to his bank account. He also admitted his signatures on the cheque though he claimed that the particulars in the cheque have been filled up by another person. He also admitted the signatures on the loan receipt which was exhibited as Ex. CW1/1. He denied only a portion of the said loan receipt , where interest to be paid @ 2% was mentioned. The said loan receipt is reproduced herein:- Ex CW1/1 This is to authenticate that Umesh Prasad r/o D-12/1/8, Rohini, Delhi-85. Has taken a loan of Rs.Fifteen lacs (15Lacs) from Mr. Srirangam Sriram. This loan is on interest of 2% per Month (Point A) Sd/- (Umesh) 13.10.2008 (Point P1) 8. The petitioner examined himself as DW-1. He not only admitted his signatures on the loan receipt but also admitted that it was written in his handwriting. The petitioner also relied upon the following documents:- 1) Appointment letter (Ex. PW1/X-1) issued by the complainant in favour of the petitioner appointing him as Assistant Manager-cum-Counselor in 2002; 2) An authorisation lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the court may presume a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. 23. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists . Section 3: Evidence Act. Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be addu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments referred to above is that the onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the fact that the cheque might be post dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
