2021 (4) TMI 34 - HC - Indian Laws

Acquittal Reversed: Liability Established Under Section 138

E.R. PREMARAJAN Versus NIMITHA PREM, STATE OF KERALA

E.R. PREMARAJAN Versus NIMITHA PREM, STATE OF KERALA - TMI Issues Involved:Appeal against divergent findings by trial court and Sessions Judge in a case involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to Acquittal of First RespondentThe appellant challenged the correctness of the judgment acquitting the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case originated with a complaint alleging the issuance of a dishonored cheque in consideration of a loan. The trial court convicted the first respondent, but the Sessions Court acquitted her, leading to the current appeal.Issue 2: Examination of EvidenceThe power of attorney holder was examined as a witness, and various exhibits were marked. The first respondent admitted her signature on the cheque but provided differing explanations regarding the transaction. The trial court convicted her based on this evidence, while the Sessions Court reversed the decision.Issue 3: Legal ArgumentsThe appellant argued that the first respondent's inconsistent stands and failure to receive the notice supported the conviction. The Sessions Court's reliance on a previous case was contested, and the power of attorney holder's role in prosecuting the complaint was highlighted as valid.Issue 4: Defence's PositionThe first respondent's counsel contended that admitting the signature did not imply execution of the cheque. They argued that the appellant failed to prove execution, negating the need for presumptions in favor of the complainant.Issue 5: Presumptions and RebuttalThe court considered the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act that a signed cheque implies liability unless rebutted. The first respondent's admission of the signature but denial of liability raised questions about the execution and repayment of the loan.Issue 6: Burden of ProofThe court analyzed whether the first respondent successfully rebutted the presumptions. Her negative attitude, inconsistent statements, and lack of evidence regarding repayment or return of the cheque weakened her defense.Issue 7: Identity and Discharge PleaThe first respondent's plea of discharge lacked evidence, and her challenge to the appellant's identity was dismissed due to contradictory statements during examination.Issue 8: Decision and SentencingThe court found the first respondent liable under Section 138 of the Act due to the unrebuted presumptions and lack of evidence supporting her defense. The acquittal was overturned, and she was sentenced to pay a fine or undergo imprisonment.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the first respondent's acquittal was overturned in favor of the appellant based on the detailed analysis of evidence and legal arguments presented during the proceedings.