2024 (6) TMI 676 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition dismissed as borrower successfully rebuts Section 139 presumption in dishonored cheque case

The HC dismissed a petition seeking leave to appeal in a dishonored cheque case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner failed to establish ... Dishonour of Cheque - discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of statutory presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- It is beyond a cavil of doubt that the power of this Court is not curtailed or limited, as it is within its realm to reappreciate the evidence available on record to render a finding. However, in reappreciating the evidence, this Court has to see whether the view taken by the trial court could not be taken by any prudent man on appreciating the materials available before it. If the view taken by the trial court, considered overall on the materials placed, is just and reasonable that the view taken by the trial court is on proper appreciation of the materials, the High Court cannot interfere with the acquittal on the ground that another view is possible. This Court will now proceed to analyse the evidence on record to find out whether the view arrived at by the trial court is based on the materials available on record or whether there are materials, which warrants grant of leave by this Court. In the absence of any witness to the passing of the amount from the petitioner to the respondent, even to aver that such a transaction could have taken place, it is incumbent on the petitioner to prove that he had the wherewithal to lend the said amount as loan to the respondent. In this regard, a perusal of the order of the court below reveals that the petitioner has not established as to where from he had the amount to be given as loan to the respondent. The petitioner merely claims that it came from his wife’s side towards sale of some properties. However, there are no materials to establish the same. The presumption available u/s 139 has to be rebutted by the accused, whereinafter, a duty is cast on the complainant to establish that the cheque, which stood dishonoured, was issued for the purpose of discharging a legally enforceable debt. In the case on hand, the respondent, through the evidence of D.W.1 and other documentary evidence has established that the cheques had not been issued to the petitioner by the respondent and such being the case, the petitioner having failed to establish that there is a legally enforceable debt, towards which the cheques were issued, the leave sought for by the petitioner to file the appeal could only be termed to be an exercise in futility as nothing could be established in the appeal and the petitioner having miserably failed to establish that he had advanced loan to the respondent, cannot seek to file the appeal praying the leave of this Court. The impugned orders passed by the court below do not deserve any interference and the same stands affirmed - Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legally enforceable debt.2. Issuance and dishonour of cheques.3. Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Scope of appellate court in interfering with acquittal.Summary:1. Legally Enforceable Debt:The petitioner claimed that the respondent borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- for real estate business and issued a promissory note agreeing to repay with 30% interest p.a. The respondent paid interest up to November 2015. The trial court found that the petitioner failed to establish a legally enforceable debt and acquitted the respondent.2. Issuance and Dishonour of Cheques:The petitioner alleged that the respondent issued four post-dated cheques, each for Rs.5,00,000/-, which were dishonoured due to 'Funds Insufficient.' The petitioner sent a legal notice demanding payment, which the respondent did not comply with, leading to the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The petitioner argued that the presumption u/s 139 of the Act was in his favor, as the respondent did not dispute his signature on the cheques. The respondent claimed the cheques were given to one Pannerselvam and not to the petitioner. The trial court held that the petitioner did not prove the cheques were issued for discharging a legally enforceable debt, thus rebutting the presumption u/s 139.4. Scope of Appellate Court in Interfering with Acquittal:The High Court reiterated the principles for appellate interference with acquittal, emphasizing that the appellate court must find the trial court's view unreasonable or based on misreading of evidence. The court found that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on proper appreciation of materials. The petitioner failed to prove the loan or the legally enforceable debt, and the respondent's denial of the cheques and loan was accepted.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the respondent. The petitioner failed to establish a legally enforceable debt or prove that the cheques were issued for discharging such a debt, making the invocation of Section 138 of the Act impermissible.