2021 (10) TMI 757 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction upheld under Section 138 for dishonored cheque issuance. Evidence found sufficient. Defense lacking proof.

Daya Ram Versus Anil Bansal

Daya Ram Versus Anil Bansal - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Admissibility of evidence and propriety of the trial court’s judgment.3. Maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Jurisdiction and scope of the High Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The petitioner-accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented by the complainant, including the dishonored cheque, the bank memo, and the legal notice served to the accused. The accused admitted to issuing the cheque and his signature on it, invoking the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued for a lawful liability. The accused's defense that the cheque was issued as a security was not supported by any evidence, leading to the conviction being upheld by the appellate court.2. Admissibility of evidence and propriety of the trial court’s judgment:The trial court meticulously evaluated the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the documents submitted. The complainant successfully demonstrated that the cheque was issued to discharge a lawful liability, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings, and the High Court found no misreading of evidence or law by the lower courts. The High Court emphasized that the accused did not provide any positive evidence to support his defense.3. Maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The petitioner argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the cheque was issued in favor of M/s. Roshan Lal & Sons, while the complaint was filed by Anil Bansal, the proprietor. The High Court dismissed this argument, noting that Anil Bansal had clearly stated in the complaint that he was the proprietor of M/s. Roshan Lal & Sons. The Court referenced the judgments in Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan and S.P. Saklani vs. Shri Ravinder Singh Thakur to support the view that a complaint under Section 138 can be filed by the proprietor of a firm if the cheque was issued in favor of the firm.4. Jurisdiction and scope of the High Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.:The High Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., which is supervisory and not equivalent to an appellate court. The High Court's role is to correct miscarriages of justice or procedural errors, not to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a glaring error. The Court found no such error in the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and upheld their judgments. The Court cited the judgment in State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri to emphasize the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, directing the petitioner to surrender and serve the sentence. The Court found that the complainant had successfully proved the issuance of the cheque for a lawful liability and that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.