Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Rajendra Mahadeorao Chaudhary (applicant/original accused) challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of a cheque. The complainant, Gajanan Keshavrao Bore (non-applicant/original complainant), alleged that the applicant issued a cheque for Rs.1,25,000 towards consideration for a registered sale deed dated 17/09/2009 for a shop purchased in the name of the applicant's wife. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued a notice dated 17/03/2010, which was received by the applicant on 30/03/2010, but the applicant failed to pay the amount. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000 to the complainant. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one month while maintaining the compensation. The applicant then filed the present revision. The applicant's defence was that the cheque was issued as security for the price of the shop, which was already paid in cash (Rs.25,000 on 10/09/2009 and Rs.1,00,000 on 17/09/2009), and that the cheque was misused by the complainant. The court examined the evidence and found that the complainant had proved the issuance of the cheque, its dishonour, and the service of notice. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or liability applied. The applicant failed to rebut this presumption as he did not produce any documentary evidence or examine witnesses to support the cash payment claim. The court held that the defence was not credible and upheld the conviction. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption under Section 139 - Defence of Security Cheque - The complainant proved that the cheque was issued towards consideration for a registered sale deed. The accused claimed the cheque was given as security and the amount was paid in cash. The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 by adducing credible evidence. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-6) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Rebuttal of Presumption - Standard of Proof - The accused must raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption under Section 139. Mere assertion without evidence is insufficient. The accused's failure to produce documentary evidence or examine witnesses to support the cash payment claim led to the rejection of the defence. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defence that the cheque was issued as security and not towards discharge of debt is sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act is sustainable.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Defence of security cheque
- Burden of proof on accused
- Standard of proof for rebuttal of presumption
