2020 (1) TMI 1471 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court upholds conviction under Section 138 of NI Act, emphasizing burden of proof.

Sathish Kumar Versus Vidhyasagar

Sathish Kumar Versus Vidhyasagar - TMI Issues:1. Appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Dismissal of appeal by Principal Sessions Court.3. Revision challenging concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.4. Burden of proof under Section 139 of the NI Act.Issue 1: Appeal against Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The case involved an Accused who borrowed a sum and issued a Cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Complainant initiated legal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Trial Court convicted the Accused and sentenced him to imprisonment and compensation. The Accused's appeal was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Court, leading to the filing of a Revision challenging the judgment.Issue 2: Dismissal of Appeal by Principal Sessions CourtThe Accused's appeal in the Principal Sessions Court was unsuccessful, upholding the Trial Court's decision of conviction. The Accused then filed a Revision challenging the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, seeking relief from the High Court.Issue 3: Revision Challenging Concurrent Findings of Fact by Lower CourtsThe Accused challenged the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the Principal Sessions Court through a Revision invoking Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court emphasized that it cannot act as a Second Appellate Court in cases with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, citing relevant legal precedents to support this principle.Issue 4: Burden of Proof under Section 139 of the NI ActThe Accused attempted to shift the burden of proof by claiming that the Cheque was given to the Complainant by a third party. However, both lower courts disbelieved this defense as the Accused failed to provide supporting evidence. The High Court highlighted that the Accused did not meet the burden of proof under Section 139 of the NI Act, as established in legal precedents. Consequently, the Revision was dismissed, affirming the Accused's conviction and directing enforcement of the sentence.This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the progression of the case, the legal principles applied, and the final decision rendered by the High Court.