2020 (11) TMI 886 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court sets aside Trial Court acquittal, convicts accused under Section 138, orders payment to complainant.

B. RAVINDRA S/O GAANAPATHAPPA Versus R.S. CHANDRAKANTHA S/O SUBRAHMANYA REVANKAR

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Trial Court's acquittal of the accused. The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable ... Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of accused - Specific defense of the accused is that he had not availed loan on 01.12.2000 and he had availed loan only on 01.12.1999 and the cheque for the said amount was collected on 01.12.1999, which was misused - Whether the Trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused in coming to the conclusion that the very transaction between the accused and the complainant is doubtful and whether it requires interference of this Court? - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand accused not denied the signature available in Ex.P.1 cheque. The only contention is that the said cheque was given at the time of getting the loan on 1.12.1999. If he has not borrowed loan on 1.12.2000 what prevented him to give any reply when two notices were issued to him with regard to payment of loan amount and subsequently on bouncing of cheque, which has not been explained by the accused to rebut the evidence. He denied the availment of loan on 1.12.2000 and there is no answer with regard to the admission made by him during the course of cross- examination when a specific question was put to him. He had admitted that he had availed loan of ₹ 50,000/- from the complainant. Suppression of fact of earlier transaction - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand no suppression as contended and the same is in respect of earlier transaction. The complaint is in respect of subsequent loan transaction and accused not paid the amount, hence the contention of the accused cannot be accepted. Accused is directed to pay an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant within a period of 8 weeks from today. If accused fails to pay the amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- within 8 weeks, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Trial Judge erred in acquitting the accused by concluding that the transaction between the accused and the complainant was doubtful.2. What order should be passed regarding the appealRs.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Error in Acquitting the AccusedThe appellant challenged the acquittal judgment on the grounds that the Trial Judge did not properly appreciate the material evidence, particularly the admission by the accused (D.W.1) regarding the loan transaction. The complainant (P.W.1) had provided oral and documentary evidence, including a cheque for Rs. 59,000/- which was dishonored, leading to the complaint. The Trial Court had focused on discrepancies in the financial records (Ex.P.9) and concluded that the transaction was doubtful. However, the appellant argued that the Trial Judge overlooked significant admissions by the accused, including the issuance of the cheque and partial repayment of Rs. 5,000/- during the proceedings.Analysis of Evidence:1. Complainant's Evidence: The complainant testified about the loan transaction dated 01.12.2000 and subsequent dishonor of the cheque. He provided evidence of notices sent to the accused and the accused's failure to respond.2. Accused's Admission: During cross-examination, the accused admitted to availing a loan on 01.12.2000 and making a partial payment of Rs. 5,000/- on 12.08.2004. Despite these admissions, the Trial Court doubted the transaction based on discrepancies in the financial records.3. Legal Presumption: The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, which held that non-reply to a notice and undisputed signature on a cheque should lead to a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Conclusion on Issue 1:The High Court found that the Trial Judge failed to consider the accused's admissions and the legal presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The Trial Judge's focus on discrepancies in Ex.P.9 was misplaced, given the clear admissions by the accused regarding the loan and partial repayment. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Trial Judge committed an error in acquitting the accused.Issue 2: OrderThe High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment and convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks. Failure to do so would result in a simple imprisonment of one year. The Trial Court was instructed to secure the accused for sentencing, and the Registry was directed to transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.Final Order:1. Appeal is allowed.2. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.01.2011 in C.C.No.56/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, is set aside.3. The accused is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.4. The accused is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks. Failure to pay will result in simple imprisonment for one year.5. The Trial Court is directed to secure the accused for sentencing.6. The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.