TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....219/2012. Further, vide order on sentence dated 07.02.2014, Petitioner No. 2 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- and in default of payment of same, to undergo simple imprisonment for three and a half months. Petitioner No. 1 company was sentenced to payment of fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2/complainant. 3. Dismissal of the appeal against the orders passed by the learned MM led to filing of the present petition. 4. Briefly stated, the case of Respondent No. 2 was that it used to supply aluminum sections to the petitioners on credit basis. It is alleged that on 31.03.2009, the petitioners had an outstanding payment of Rs. 37,87,641/- due to Respondent No. 2. 5. It is alleged that after acknowledging the said liability, Petitioner No. 1 company through its Director, Petitioner No. 2 issued three cheques bearing numbers - 002602 dated 08.05.2009 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 002603 dated 12.05.2009 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and 002607 dated 18.05.2009 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, all drawn on Union Bank of India, Indira Puram Branch, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and assured Respondent No. 2 that the said cheques wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned MM as well as the learned ASJ have passed comprehensive judgments covering every aspect of the defence of the petitioners and after thoroughly examining the evidence on record, have rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 17. She submitted that the petitioners during the course of trial have failed to summon Mr. Kamal who allegedly received the intimation from the petitioners regarding the cancellation of the purchase order and return the subject cheques back to the petitioners. 18. She submitted that the petitioners had failed to prove their own documents during the course of trial and thus made their case devoid of any merit. 19. She consequently prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 20. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Analysis 21. Since the present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of the CrPC, challenging the concurrent findings of both lower courts, this Court's role is limited to assessing the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. 22. It is trite law that this Court is required to exercise restraint and should not interfere with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is relevant to note that the signature of Petitioner No. 2 on the cheques in dispute has not been denied. It is trite law that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder of the cheque/respondent received the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability are raised against the accused [Ref. Rangappa v. Sri Mohan : (2010) 11 SCC 441]. 27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh : (2023) 10 SCC 148, while discussing the appropriate approach in dealing with presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, observed the following: 54. .... Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of trial had examined DW-1, one official from the Union Bank of India, Indira Puram branch from where the disputed cheques had been drawn from. 29. He had stated that when a "self" drawn cheque is presented for encashment by the account holder then he is required to sign on the back side of the cheque and further one more signature is required at the time of disbursement of cash. 30. He deposed that when a "self" drawn cheque is presented for encashment by a third person, then that individual is required to sign twice on the back side of the cheque as well as write their name, mobile number and address on the back of the cheque. 31. He further stated that the account maintained by the petitioners was an overdraft account and at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment the drawee is not required to sign on the back side of the cheque if the same is addressed as "self". 32. From a perusal of the disputed cheques, it can be seen that the signature of Petitioner No. 2 appears on the back side of the subject cheques. Further, no details of the complainant as required were present on the back side of the disputed cheques. 33. The learned ASJ as well as the learned MM note....