Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sada Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Sachin Patkar, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the respondent. The trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. The appellant challenged the acquittal on the ground that the trial court failed to draw the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act in its favour, despite the respondent admitting his signature on the cheque. The High Court held that the trial court misdirected itself on facts and law by not drawing the presumption and by not properly evaluating the evidence in light of the presumption. The court found that the respondent had not successfully rebutted the presumption. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the trial court to consider the statutory presumptions and the evidence afresh.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Statutory Presumption - Sections 118 and 139 - The trial court failed to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, despite the accused admitting his signature on the cheque. The appellate court held that this failure vitiated the acquittal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 2-3)
B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Rebuttal of Presumption - Section 139 - Burden of Proof - The accused must adduce evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139; mere denial is insufficient. The trial court's finding that the accused rebutted the presumption was not supported by evidence, and the matter was remanded for proper evaluation. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by failing to draw the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the complainant, and whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 04.09.2014, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the trial court to consider the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and evaluate the evidence afresh.
Law Points
- Statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 arises upon admission of signature on cheque
- shifting burden to accused to rebut
- failure to draw presumption is legal error
- appellate court can re-evaluate evidence in appeal against acquittal.
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 113
Criminal Appeal No. 73/2014
Shri Shailendra G. Bhobe for Appellant, Shri Rohan Dessai for Respondents
The Sada Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., through its General Manager, Mr. Pratosh R. Lotlikar
Mr. Sachin Patkar, The State of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought conviction of the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Filing Reason
The respondent issued a cheque which was dishonoured, and the trial court acquitted the respondent despite the appellant's evidence and statutory presumptions.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused on 04.09.2014 in Criminal Case No.24/OA/NIA/2012/C.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in failing to draw the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant.
Whether the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trial court misdirected itself on facts and law, failed to consider statutory presumptions, and that the respondent admitted his signature on the cheque, warranting conviction.
Respondent argued that the trial court correctly acquitted the accused as the presumption was rebutted.
Ratio Decidendi
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises upon admission of signature on the cheque, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut it. Failure to draw this presumption and evaluate evidence accordingly is a legal error warranting reversal of acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Trial Court failed to consider the statutory presumptions that arose in favour of the appellant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and further to evaluate the evidence adduced by the appellant bearing in mind the said statutory presumptions.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class failed to consider that the respondent no.1 had admitted that he had signed the dishonoured cheque and in view thereof, ought to have drawn the necessary presumption in favour of the complainant that there was a legally enforceable debt in their favour.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused on 04.09.2014. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which allowed the appeal and remanded the matter on 13.01.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 118, 139
