2016 (4) TMI 1423 - HC - Indian Laws

Accused acquitted as High Court finds presumption rebutted under Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction overturned.

Threja Versus Jayalaxmi

Threja Versus Jayalaxmi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the trial Court and the Appellate Court committed serious illegality in assessing the evidence regarding the rebuttal of presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act.2. Whether any interference is called for by the High Court, and if so, to what extent.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Evidence Assessment by Trial and Appellate Courts:The petitioner challenged the conviction and fine imposed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The petitioner argued that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act was effectively rebutted through cross-examination, proving that only Rs. 1.9 lakhs were received and repaid, not Rs. 4.6 lakhs as claimed by the complainant. The complainant, however, contended that the presumption was not effectively rebutted and that the accused failed to prove her defense.2. High Court's Interference:The High Court scrutinized the evidence and arguments, noting several inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony. The complainant admitted to knowing the accused well and acknowledged financial transactions, including the issuance of cheques. However, she failed to provide concrete evidence of having sufficient funds to lend Rs. 4.6 lakhs, such as bank statements or proof of pledging gold ornaments. The court found the complainant's explanations inconsistent and improbable, particularly regarding the source of the loan and the issuance of cheques.Key Findings:- The complainant's admission of receiving Rs. 1.9 lakhs from the accused and the issuance of multiple cheques totaling Rs. 1.33 lakhs supported the defense's claim.- The complainant's inconsistent statements about her financial capacity and the source of the loan undermined her credibility.- Both lower courts failed to critically evaluate these inconsistencies and relied too heavily on the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. The judgment of conviction and sentence by the trial court and its affirmation by the appellate court were set aside. The accused was acquitted of the charges, and any bail bonds executed were canceled. The petitioner was granted the liberty to recover any amount already withdrawn by the complainant in accordance with the law.