Bombay HC convicts accused in dishonour of cheque case, overturns acquittal for rejecting certified board resolution copy

Bombay HC allowed appeal against acquittal in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Trial court erroneously discarded certified copy of board resolution for non-production of original minutes book. HC held complainant fulfilled proof requirements under Evidence Act Section 65 for secondary evidence. Accused failed to object during cross-examination, making subsequent objection impermissible. Trial court's hyper-technical approach deemed perverse. Accused convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1 crore.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complainant company proved that their representative was authorized to give evidence before the court.
2. Whether the trial court erred in discarding the oral and documentary evidence.

Summary:

Issue 1: Authorization of Representative
The main contention was whether the complainant company had adequately proven that their representative, C.W. No. 1, was authorized to give evidence. The trial Magistrate had previously acquitted the accused due to the complainant's failure to prove this authorization.

The complainant's counsel argued that the authorization was sufficiently proven through various documents, including an affidavit by the Chairman and Authorized Representative, Mr. Hashim Abdul Razak, and certified copies of the Board Resolution and minutes book. These documents were marked as exhibits by the trial court, which indicated that the court was satisfied with their authenticity at the time.

The defense argued that the originals of these documents were never produced in court, which was a necessary step for verification. However, the appellate court noted that the defense did not challenge the authenticity of these documents during cross-examination or through their own evidence, thus waiving their right to object later.

The appellate court concluded that the trial court's findings were perverse and hyper-technical, and the complainant had indeed fulfilled the burden of proving the documents. The trial court's decision to discard the true copies of the resolution was deemed erroneous.

Issue 2: Error in Discarding Evidence
The appellate court reviewed the trial court's handling of the documentary evidence. The trial court had refused to accept the certified copies of the Board Resolution and minutes book on the grounds that the originals were not produced. The appellate court found this to be an unnecessary and incorrect application of the law, especially since the complainant had indicated the originals were available for verification.

The appellate court emphasized that objections regarding the mode of proof should be raised at the time of evidence recording, not subsequently. The defense's failure to challenge the documents during cross-examination meant they could not later argue about the non-production of originals.

Conclusion:
The appellate court held that the complainant had proven the authorization of their representative and that the trial court had erred in discarding the evidence. The judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Order:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The acquittal judgment dated 9th August 2019 is set aside.
3. The respondent is found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. The respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000.
5. The fine amount must be deposited within two months.
6. Rs. 99,90,000 of the fine will be paid to the complainant, and Rs. 10,000 will be appropriated to the State Government.
7. If the respondent fails to pay the fine, he will undergo six months of simple imprisonment.
8. A copy of the order will be provided to the respondent free of cost.

---