2022 (10) TMI 135 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms conviction under Section 138

Sh. Sanjeev Verma, S/O Sh. Roshan Lal Verma Versus Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Khaylu Ram, State of Himachal Pradesh

Sh. Sanjeev Verma, S/O Sh. Roshan Lal Verma Versus Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Khaylu Ram, State of Himachal Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Appreciation of evidence by the trial and appellate courts.3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Defence of the accused regarding the issuance of the cheque as security.5. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence:The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 27.12.2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, affirming the conviction and sentence dated 29.4.2016/3.5.2016 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and ordering compensation of Rs. 1,30,000 to the complainant.2. Appreciation of Evidence by the Trial and Appellate Courts:The complainant alleged that the accused purchased apple boxes amounting to Rs. 92,310, paid Rs. 12,710 in cash, and issued a cheque for Rs. 79,600, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving a legal notice, the accused failed to make the payment, leading to proceedings under Section 138. Both the trial and appellate courts meticulously examined the evidence, including the issuance and dishonor of the cheque, and upheld the conviction.3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The accused did not deny issuing the cheque or his signatures on it but claimed it was given as security and misused by the complainant. The courts noted that under Sections 118 and 139, there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque that it was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The accused failed to rebut this presumption with credible evidence, as he could not prove the alleged cash payment.4. Defence of the Accused Regarding the Issuance of the Cheque as Security:The accused argued that the cheque was issued as security and was misused. However, no substantial evidence was provided to support this claim. The complainant's evidence, including the cheque, dishonor memo, and legal notice, was unchallenged in cross-examination. The accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC and the testimonies of defence witnesses did not establish the alleged cash payment or misuse of the cheque.5. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC:The High Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction under Section 397 to re-appreciate evidence, especially with concurrent findings from lower courts. It cited the Supreme Court's judgment in 'State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri,' stating that revisional power is supervisory and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. The court found no glaring errors or miscarriage of justice in the lower courts' judgments.Conclusion:The High Court found no merit in the revision petition, upholding the judgments and orders of the lower courts. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court to serve the sentence if not already served. The court dismissed the petition and disposed of any pending applications, canceling the bail bonds furnished by the accused.