TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he accused knew each other. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant on 19.5.2014. He issued post-dated cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India to discharge his liability. The accused again borrowed a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs on 19.7.2014 from the complainant. The accused issued a post-dated cheque of Rs.3.00 lacs drawn on Central Bank of India to discharge his liability. The complainant presented both the cheques to his Bank, but these were dishonoured with the memo 'funds insufficient'. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly received by the accused, but he failed to pay the amount; hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per law. 3. The learned Trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence and summoned the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined himself as (CW1). The accused, in his statement recorded un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the complainant. The accused tried to demonstrate that the complainant was a moneylender, and a suggestion to this effect was given to the complainant, but the complainant denied the same, and a denied suggestion does not amount to any proof. Therefore, this plea was not established. The cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient', and notice was duly served upon the accused but the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque to the complainant. Hence, he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision, asserting that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are based on conjectures and surmises. The provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act were ignored. There was some dispute related to the sale of land. This fact was admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. The complainant admitted that he was contesting similar litigation about the agreements involving a huge amount of Rs.96.00 lacs. The complainant failed to produce the Income Tax Retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had rightly discarded this evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed on page 207: - "10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC." 14. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 544: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 37: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any perversity. It was observed on page 169: "12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452: 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], while co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction." 14. In the above case, also conviction of the accused was recorded, and the High Court set aside [Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke v. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1753] the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views, and that too without any legal basis. 15. This position was reiterated in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid to be rebutted. " 9. S.139 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 18. Similar is the judgment in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa 2019 (5) SCC 418, wherein it was held: "26. Applying the proposition of law as noted above, in the facts of the present case, it is clear that the signature on the cheque, having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under Section 139 that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability." 19. This position was reiterated in Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC 283: (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 25: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 555: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 75 wherein it was held at page 289: "14. Once the 2nd appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The trial court fell in error when it called upon the respondent complainant to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such an approach ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence that the full amount due and payable to the complainant had been paid. In the present case, no such evidence has been led by the accused. The story put forward by the accused that the cheques were given by way of security is not believable in the absence of further evidence to rebut the presumption, and more particularly, the cheque in question was issued for the second time after the earlier cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, both the courts below have materially erred in not properly appreciating and considering the presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability as per Section 139 of the NI Act. It appears that both the learned trial court as well as the High Court have committed an error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. As observed above, Section 139 of the Act is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore, once the issuance of the cheque has been admitted and even the signature on the cheque has been admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally enforceab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. The trial court was not persuaded to rely on the interested testimony of DW 1 to rebut the presumption. The said finding was upheld [Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan v. K. Bhaskaran, Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1995, order dated 23-10-1998 (Ker)] by the High Court. It is not now open to the accused to contend differently on that aspect." 15. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, referred to the decision of this Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [Basalingappa v. Mudibasa ppa, (2019) 5 SCC 418: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571] wherein it is held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 432-33, paras 25-26) "25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner: 25.1. Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts." 16. In that light, it is contended that the very materials produced by the appellant and the answers relating to lack of knowledge of property details by PW 1 in his cross- examination would indicate that the transaction is doubtful, and no evidence is tendered to indicate that the amount was paid. In such an event, it was not necessary for the respondent to tender rebuttal evidence, but the case put forth would be sufficient to indicate that the respondent has successfully rebutted the presumption. 17. On the position of law, the provisions referred to in Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, as also the enunciation of law as made by this Court, need no reiteration as there is no ambiguity whatsoever. In Basalingappav. Mudibasappa [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571] relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, though on facts the ultimate conclusion therein was against raising presumption, the facts and circumstances are entirely different as the transaction between the parties as claimed in the said case is p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charged by the Complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque are not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a statutory presumption and thereafter, once it is presumed that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which is in favour of the Complainant/holder of the cheque, in that case, it is for the accused to prove the contrary." 24. This position was reiterated in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1275, wherein it was observed at page 161 : 33. The NI Act provides for two presumptions: Section 118 and Section 139. Section 118 of the Act inter alia directs that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Section 139 of the Act stipulates that "unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability". It will be see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ischarge of any liability. Until this evidential burden is discharged by the accused, the presumed fact will have to be taken to be true, without expecting the complainant to do anything further. 38. John Henry Wigmore [John Henry Wigmore and the Rules of Evidence: The Hidden Origins of Modern Law] on Evidence states as follows : "The peculiar effect of the presumption of law is merely to invoke a rule of law compelling the Jury to reach the conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the opponent but if the opponent does offer evidence to the contrary (sufficient to satisfy the Judge's requirement of some evidence), the presumption 'disappears as a rule of law and the case is in the Jury's hands free from any rule'." 39. The standard of proof to discharge this evidential burden is not as heavy as that usually seen in situations where the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of an accused. The accused is not expected to prove the non- existence of the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused must meet the standard of "preponderance of probabilities", similar to a defendant in a civil proceeding. [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan][Rangappa v. Sri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. The complainant stated in his cross-examination that an agreement dated 19.7.2014 was executed between the parties. He had litigation with the accused regarding the earnest money for some land. The earnest money was Rs.3,50,000/- out of which he had paid Rs.3.00 lacs, and Rs.50,000/- was to be paid by him at the time of the sale deed. The sale deed was not executed in this case. He had 10 cases pending against Jagdish Sharma regarding the cheque and the earnest money for Rs.96.00 lacs. One case was pending with Anil Kumar for Rs.1,90,000/-, one case was pending with Ram Singh for Rs.3,10,000/-, one case was pending with Fun Chong Tashi for Rs.50,000/-, one case was pending against Prem Singh for Rs.2.00 lacs, and one case pertaining to earnest money was pending with Lekh Raj for Rs.10.00 lacs and Rs.7.00 lacs. He denied that he used to advance money on interest. He admitted that he had not mentioned the amount in his Income Tax Return. 30. It was submitted that the cross-examination of the complainant shows that he is a moneylender and, in the absence of registration, he could not have filed the present complaint. This submission is not acceptable. The complainant specifically ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner." 7. A collective reading of both the aforesaid Sections would go to show that even though contravention of Section 269-SS of the IT Act would be visited with a strict penalty on the person taking the loan or deposit. However, Section 271D does not in any manner suggest or even provide that such a transaction would be null and void. The payer of money in cash, in violation of Section 269 SS of the IT Act can always have the money recovered. 8. The object of introducing Section 269 of the IT Act has been succinctly set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. Director of Inspection Investigation vs. A.B. Shanthi (2002) 6 SCC 259, wherein it was observed as under:- "8. The object of introducing Section 269-SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give a false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries in his accounts, he shall not escape by giving false entries in his accounts, he shall not escape by giving a false explanation for the same. During search and seizures, unaccounted money is unearthed and the taxpayer would usually give the explanation that he had borrowed or received deposits from his relatives or friends ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt nor in his evidence, has mentioned the date, time or year when the loan was sought or given. The appellant has presented a cheque, which obviously is written with two different inks, as the signature is appearing in one ink, while the remaining portion, which has been filled up in the cheque, is in different ink. All these factors prove the defence of the respondent to be plausible to the effect that he had issued these cheques by way of security to the appellant for getting a loan from Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana. The respondent/accused has only to create doubt in the version of the appellant, while the appellant has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, in which, in my opinion, he has failed miserably. There is no cogent reason which has been shown by the appellant which will persuade this Court to grant leave to appeal against the impugned order, as there is no infirmity in the impugned order." 33. Therefore, the submission that the complaint was liable to be dismissed because the amount was given in violation of Section 269(SS) and was not reflected in the income tax return cannot be accepted. 34. It was submitted that the complainant admitted the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act which reads as under: "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account.-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, ..." 22. In Kumar Exports [Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513: (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 629: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 823], it was held that mere denial of the existence of debt will not serve any purpose but the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption. This Court held as under: (SCC pp. 520-21, para 20) "20. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that, under the particular circumstances of the case, the non-existence of conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....para 22) "22. Another judgment which needs to be looked into is Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 477: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184]. A three-judge Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the presumption under Section 139 of the 1881 Act. This Court in the aforesaid case has held that in the event the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubt with regard to the existence of a debt or liability, the presumption may fail. The following was laid down in paras 26 and 27: (SCC pp. 453-54) '26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat [Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166] may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is, of course, in the nature of a rebuttable presum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. *** 36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt." 25. In other judgment Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat [Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 389: AIR 2019 SC 1876] this Court held as under: (SCC paras 15, 17 and 22) "15. So far the question of the existence of basic ingredients for drawing of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act is concerned, apparent it is that the appellant-accused could not deny his signature on the cheques in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated by perversity. Hence, interference by the High Court was inevitable; rather had to be made for a just and proper decision of the matter." "20. The Trial Court and the High Court proceeded as if the appellant were to prove a debt before a civil court, wherein the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. Dishonour of a cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of the cheque in due course is required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when the same was presented, it was not honoured. Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability." 35. A similar view was taken in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC 106, and it was held that once a presumption has been drawn, the onus shifts to the accused. It was observed: - 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant- accused, the impugned judgment is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Arulvelu [Arulvelum v. State, (200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out a probable defence so as to rebut the presumption, the appellate court is certainly entitled to examine the evidence on record in order to find if preponderance indeed leans in favour of the accused. 13. For determination of the point as to whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and orders of the trial court and convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the basic questions to be addressed are twofold: as to whether the complainant Respondent 2 had established the ingredients of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, so as to justify drawing of the presumption envisaged therein; and if so, as to whether the appellant-accused had been able to displace such presumption and to establish a probable defence whereby, the onus would again shift to the complainant? 36. This position was reiterated in Ashok Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 706, wherein it was observed: 22. The High Court while allowing the criminal revision has primarily proceeded on the presumption that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to establish his case on the basis of evidence by giving the details of the bank account as well as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a case, for the plea of defence has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or documentary, which in the present case has not been done. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the complainant had not proved the source of the money given to the petitioners by way of loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such claim for the reason that the cheques having being issued and signed by the petitioners has not been denied, and no evidence has been led to show that the respondent lacked capacity to provide the amount(s) in question. In this regard, we may make profitable reference to the decision in Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735 : '10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the official mark showing that the cheque was dishonoured would, by itself, give rise to the presumption of dishonour of the cheque, unless and until that fact was disproved. Section 147 makes the offences punishable under the Act compoundable. 41. It was submitted that the cheque return memo does not contain the certificate under the Banker Book Evidence Act. This submission will not help the accused because the memo is the original and does not require any certificate. 42. The accused admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he had received the notice. Thus, the receipt of the notice is undisputed. The accused claimed that he had paid Rs.3,50,000/-; however, it was not proved that this amount was paid to the complainant; therefore, no advantage can be derived from the payment made by the accused. 43. Thus, it was duly proved on record that the cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and the accused failed to repay the amount despite the receipt of a valid notice of demand; therefore, all the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act were duly satisfied and the accused was rightly convicte....