Case Note & Summary
The dispute between the complainant Nilesh P. Salgaonkar and the accused Deelip Apte involved three cheques issued by the accused to the complainant, which were dishonoured. The complainant alleged that the cheques were given as payment for a loan of Rs.1,70,000 advanced in November 2003, while the accused claimed they were given as security. The complainant sent statutory notices for the dishonoured cheques and filed two separate complaints: one for the first two cheques (C.C. No. 219/P/04/B) and another for the third cheque (C.C. No. 376/OA/04/C). The first complaint resulted in the accused's conviction and sentence of two months simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs.1,00,000, which was upheld by the Sessions Court in appeal. The accused filed a criminal revision against this conviction. The second complaint was dismissed and the accused acquitted. The legal issues considered were whether the separate trials for the cheques were permissible and whether the conviction was sustainable. The court analyzed that each cheque constitutes a separate offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and separate trials are permissible. The court found that the complainant had proved the issuance and dishonour of the cheques, raising the presumption under Section 139 that the cheques were for a legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut this presumption. The court also noted that the acquittal in the second complaint did not affect the conviction in the first, as the evidence was independent. The court dismissed the revision and upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no prejudice to the accused.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Separate Trials - The accused was convicted for dishonour of two cheques while a third cheque complaint was dismissed. The court held that separate trials for each cheque are permissible and no prejudice was caused to the accused as the evidence was independent. (Paras 2-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption of Debt - The complainant proved the issuance of cheques and their dishonour, raising the presumption under Section 139 that the cheques were for a legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut this presumption. (Paras 6-8) C) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Compensation - The court upheld the sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation, noting that the compensation amount was appropriate. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the accused for dishonour of two cheques is sustainable when a separate complaint for a third cheque was dismissed and the accused acquitted, and whether the separate trials caused prejudice to the accused.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the criminal revision application and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused for dishonour of two cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Law Points
- Separate trials for dishonour of multiple cheques are permissible
- Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- presumption of legally enforceable debt
- burden of proof on accused to rebut presumption
