Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) against the petitioner (accused) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 25,00,000. The complainant alleged that the accused owed him the amount for business purposes and had executed a demand promissory note before a Notary Public on 01.11.2011, agreeing to repay within a month. Towards repayment, the accused issued a cheque dated 01.12.2011 drawn on Bank of India, which was dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds. After following statutory notice, the complainant filed the complaint. The accused admitted his signature on the cheque but claimed it was given as blank security for a loan of Rs. 10,00,000 from a different person, not the complainant, and that the complainant misused it. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the High Court examined whether the presumption under Section 139 NI Act was rebutted. The court held that the accused failed to prove his defence on preponderance of probabilities, as he did not produce any evidence of the alleged loan from another person or that the cheque was given as security. The court noted that the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt through the promissory note and the accused's admission of signature. The concurrent findings were not perverse, and the revision was dismissed, upholding the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and compensation of Rs. 25,00,000.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Presumption under Section 139 - Rebuttal - The accused must prove on preponderance of probabilities that the cheque was not issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt - Mere assertion of blank cheque given as security without credible evidence does not rebut the presumption - Held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption and conviction under Section 138 NI Act was proper (Paras 10-14). B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Legally Enforceable Debt - Existence of Debt - The complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt - In this case, the complainant proved the debt through a demand promissory note and the accused's admission of signature on the cheque - Held that the debt was legally enforceable (Paras 7-9). C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revision - Scope - The revisional court can interfere only if there is a patent illegality or perversity in findings - The concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts cannot be re-appreciated in revision unless they are perverse - Held that no interference was warranted (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt stands rebutted by the accused's defence that the cheque was given as blank security and not towards any existing debt.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 under Section 138 NI Act.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 NI Act
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Standard of proof for accused
- Blank cheque as security
- Legally enforceable debt
