Case Note & Summary
The case involves three criminal revision applications filed by Rajat Jaiprakash Rastogi, Mrs. Gursimran M. Deol, and Lt. Col. B.T. Jade against M/s. JMJ Estates and another, challenging their conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicants were convicted by the trial court for dishonour of cheques issued to the respondent. The High Court noted that the trial court had not properly considered the defence evidence and had mechanically applied the presumption under Section 139 of the Act without examining whether the presumption was rebutted. The court observed that the trial court's judgment suffered from non-application of mind and was unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision applications, set aside the convictions, and remanded the matters back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court directed that the trial court shall consider the evidence afresh and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity to both parties to be heard.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Conviction - Non-application of mind - The trial court convicted the applicants without properly considering the defence evidence and the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court held that the trial court's judgment suffered from non-application of mind and set aside the conviction, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Presumption under Section 139 - Rebuttable presumption - The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability is rebuttable. The trial court must consider the defence evidence and if the accused raises a probable defence, the presumption stands rebutted. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without properly considering the defence evidence and the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision applications, set aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence, and remanded the matters back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to consider the evidence afresh and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity to both parties to be heard.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable
- Trial court must apply mind to defence evidence
- Conviction without considering defence is illegal
