2021 (2) TMI 113 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court quashes orders in Section 138 case, stresses evidence importance, sets burden of proof.

Maruthi. H Versus Abdul Khadar Jilani

The High Court intervened in the case involving a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, quashing the orders in C.C.No.675/2013 ... Dishonor of Cheque - It is contended by petitioners' counsel that the complainant had filed the private complaint against the accused after following the requisite conditions of the N.I.Act, but the same came to be dismissed for non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- The Negotiable Instruments Act is a special enactment which delivers social justice as well criminal justice. The cause of action arise only after return of the instrument from the Bank as where the cheque was presented. Even pre-cognizance has been taken on filing of the complaint by the complainant by following requisite condition under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and thereafter, if found that there is a prima-facie case to proceed, the Court has to apply it's mind as under Section 142 of N.I.Act for taking cognizance under the aforesaid provision. But the cognizance arise in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, it is pre-cognizance and post cognizance. But post cognizance it is only after initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused by perusal of the material facilitated by the complainant and thereafter to proceed in further to prove the guilt of the accused by producing worthwhile evidence which may end in conviction or acquittal. But it is the domain vested with the trial Court. The trial Court has to give credentiality to Section 138 of the N.I.Act which is a special enactment and so also, give credentiality to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act as wherein the Doctrine of Preponderance of Probability even in civil in nature under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. But after post-cognizance the complainant has to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence, then there shall be Doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt if the case ends in conviction and if any doubt arise, then the case ends in acquittal, it is based upon the evidence facilitated by the complainant to establish his case and similarly the witnesses have to be subjected to cross-examination on the part of the defense. Even as under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, there is a presumptive value neither the evidence of the complainant or defense and the proceedings has to be taken in terms of the prosecution. In the instant case, the petitioner/complainant being a gravamen of the charge, has challenged the order of for dismissal of his complaint for non-prosecution by urging various grounds. Therefore, it is deemed proper for intervention of the impugned order, if not, certainly the complainant/petitioner would be the sufferer. Petition allowed. Issues:Petition to quash orders in C.C.No.675/2013, dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution, restoration application, intervention of High Court, interpretation of N.I. Act provisions, expedited case proceedings.Analysis:The petitioner sought to quash orders in C.C.No.675/2013 related to a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to a restoration application. The petitioner argued that the dismissal was unjust, potentially causing a miscarriage of justice. The High Court reviewed the case's progression, noting the complainant's adherence to N.I. Act conditions, including recording a sworn statement and producing relevant materials. The accused had issued a bogus cheque, leading to the complaint. The Court emphasized the importance of post-cognizance proceedings in proving guilt and the trial court's role in evaluating evidence for conviction or acquittal.The judgment highlighted the significance of the Negotiable Instruments Act in delivering social and criminal justice. It explained the process from pre-cognizance to post-cognizance stages, emphasizing the need for credible evidence to establish guilt. The Court underscored the trial court's authority in applying N.I. Act provisions and the Indian Evidence Act's doctrine of preponderance of probability. It clarified the burden of proof on the complainant and the necessity of cross-examination for defense witnesses. The judgment referenced Section 139 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the presumptive value of evidence in prosecution proceedings.The High Court intervened in the impugned orders, setting them aside and restoring the case to its file. Acknowledging the case's prolonged duration, the Court directed expedited proceedings following COVID-19 protocols. It emphasized that the order's observations should not influence the lower court's decision, urging a merit-based disposal in accordance with the law. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal intricacies involved in the case, ensuring a fair and just resolution while upholding the principles of the N.I. Act and procedural justice.