2019 (8) TMI 1088 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition challenging conviction under Negotiable Instruments Act dismissed. Presumption of debt upheld. Need for credible evidence emphasized.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found no material ... Dishonor of Cheque - existence of debt or not - insufficiency of funds - conviction of accissed - Rebuttal of presumption - material alteration in the cheque - HELD THAT:- As per the case of the complainant the accused borrowed the hand loan of ₹ 1,50,000/- and when it has been demanded to return he has issued the cheque. Insofar as issuance of cheque is admitted by DW1 also. The only contention which has been contended is that there is material alteration of the figure ‘1’ behind ‘50’. But as could be seen from Ex.P1 the said ₹ 1,50,000/- has also been written in words. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when once the drawer of the cheque signs and delivers to another, then if it is incomplete negotiable instrument thereby he gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the instrument as a Negotiable Instrument - the figures and words written tallies with each other. Then under such circumstances the contention of the petitioner/accused that there is a material alteration of ‘1’ in the said cheque Ex.P1 does not stand to any reason. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the complainant is a stranger to accused and he was not acquainted with the complainant, but the evidence of the accused who has been examined as DW1 in his examination-in-chief has admitted that the signature found on the cheque Ex.P1 belongs to him and it is his specific case that the said cheque has been issued to DW2 Ramesh - It is well proposed principles of law in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan [2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised, it is a mandatory presumption and if at all any contentions has been taken by the accused, it is the accused who has to rebut the said presumption on preponderance of probabilities. The petitioner/accused has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the orders of the trial Court. The orders of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed - petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to judgment of conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act based on material alteration in the cheque, contention regarding debt enforceability, and examination of evidence presented by both parties.Analysis:Issue 1: Material Alteration in the ChequeThe petitioners challenged the judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming material alteration in the cheque. The accused argued that the figure '1' was inserted behind '50' on the cheque, altering its value. However, the court examined the evidence and found that the figures and words written on the cheque matched, indicating no material alteration. Reference was made to Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows completion of an incomplete instrument by the holder with the drawer's authority.Issue 2: Debt EnforceabilityThe petitioners contended that there was no enforceable debt, questioning the legitimacy of the cheque issuance. However, as per Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused admits the signature on the cheque, a presumption of a legally recoverable debt arises. The court highlighted the mandatory presumption under Section 139, emphasizing that once the accused admits the signature, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption, which was not done in this case.Issue 3: Examination of EvidenceThe court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies and submissions. The respondent argued that the evidence showed collusion between the accused and witnesses, but the court found inconsistencies in the petitioner's contentions. The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence and proper examination-in-chief for witness testimonies to be admissible. It was concluded that the petitioner failed to provide substantial proof to support their contentions, leading to the dismissal of the petition challenging the judgment of conviction.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition after a detailed analysis of the issues raised, highlighting the importance of legal principles, evidence examination, and burden of proof in cases involving the Negotiable Instruments Act.