Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the original complainant and the State against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused owed him Rs. 39,700 for cement supplied, and a cheque issued for that amount was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the accused, but the Sessions Judge, on appeal, acquitted him after noting that the complainant admitted in cross-examination that there was no business transaction between them and that he had no documentary evidence to support his claim. The High Court, in revision, examined whether the Sessions Judge's order was perverse or illegal. It held that the Sessions Judge had correctly appreciated the evidence, particularly the complainant's admissions, which rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Rebuttal of Presumption - The complainant admitted in cross-examination that there was no business transaction between him and the accused and that he had no documents to prove such transaction. The Sessions Judge held that this admission rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, leading to acquittal. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no perversity in the Sessions Judge's appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on the complainant's admission that there was no business transaction between the parties.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable
- Complainant's admission in cross-examination can rebut presumption
- Appellate court can re-appreciate evidence
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 42
Criminal Revision Application No. 10 of 2005
Shri P.A. Kamat for Petitioners, Respondent in person
Shri Sandesh Ka. Dessai and State
Shri Dattaraj Keshav Prabhu Gaonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
The complainant and the State sought to set aside the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge and restore the conviction by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 39,700 towards cement supplied, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2004, acquitted the accused.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused based on the complainant's admission of no business transaction.
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted by the accused.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused and that the trial court's conviction was correct.
The respondent argued that the complainant's own admission in cross-examination that there was no business transaction rebutted the presumption under Section 139, justifying acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that a cheque was issued for a debt or liability is rebuttable. The complainant's admission in cross-examination that there was no business transaction between the parties and that he had no documents to prove such transaction effectively rebutted the presumption, justifying the acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
The Sessions Judge has observed that in the cross-examination the complainant had specifically stated that there was no business transaction between him and the accused and further that he has not stated in the complaint that the cheque was issued in respect of the transaction between him and the accused.
The Sessions Court therefore on the basis of this admission, held that the presumption which was raised under S.139 of the said Act was rebutted by the accused and therefore the accused was entitled to be acquitted.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the J.M.F.C., who convicted the accused. The accused appealed to the Sessions Judge, who acquitted him. The complainant and the State then filed a criminal revision application before the High Court, which was dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 139
