2010 (9) TMI 1278 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction upheld under Section 138 for dishonored cheque, fine imposed on appeal. Complainant requirements met.

V. Vijayakumar Versus M.T. Vijayan and Ors.

The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque. The trial court sentenced the ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction and sentence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Denial of opportunity to the accused to substantiate his defense.4. Legality of the trial court's and appellate court's findings.Summary:1. Conviction and Sentence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV Kozhikode. The trial court found that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The accused was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. The appellate court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court but upheld the compensation order.2. Rebuttal of Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The revision petitioner argued that the complainant failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the courts below failed to appreciate the falsity of the complainant's case. The petitioner contended that the cheque was dishonoured due to 'stop payment' and 'signature incomplete,' thus rebutting the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act. However, the court found that the petitioner did not effectively challenge the complainant's evidence or provide a plausible explanation for the cheque's dishonour.3. Denial of Opportunity to the Accused to Substantiate His Defense:The petitioner claimed that the trial court denied him the opportunity to summon bank officials to prove the 'stop payment' instruction, thereby prejudicing his defense. The court noted that the petitioner failed to pay the necessary batta in time, leading to the closure of defense evidence. The court found no merit in the argument that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to substantiate his defense.4. Legality of the Trial Court's and Appellate Court's Findings:The court upheld the findings of the trial court and the appellate court, stating that the complainant had complied with all requirements to initiate prosecution u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The court found that the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt and was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act and did not provide any evidence to support his defense.Conclusion:The revision petition was disposed of by confirming the conviction u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The court modified the sentence, imposing a fine of Rs. 2,80,000 instead of imprisonment, with three months granted to deposit the fine. In case of default, the petitioner would undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The fine amount was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant, with the remaining amount deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps against the petitioner were deferred till 30.12.2010.