Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Radhesham Laxminarayan and Co., a partnership firm, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta, alleging that two cheques of Rs.1 lakh each issued by the respondent for purchase of grains were dishonoured. Despite a legal notice, the amount was not paid. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the appellate court acquitted him. The High Court, in appeal, held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt was not rebutted by the accused. The appellate court's acquittal was based on irrelevant considerations and was perverse. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt - Section 138, 139 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The complainant issued two cheques for Rs.1 lakh each which were dishonoured. The accused failed to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted. The High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that the accused did not discharge the burden to rebut the presumption. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Power of Appellate Court - Section 378 CrPC - The High Court, hearing an appeal against acquittal, can re-appreciate evidence and reverse the finding if the lower appellate court's view is perverse or not based on evidence. The court found that the acquittal was based on irrelevant considerations and not sustainable. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of the appellate court dated 31.7.2003 is set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court dated 22.2.1995 are restored.
Law Points
- Presumption of legally enforceable debt under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Rebuttal of presumption by accused
- Standard of proof in cheque dishonour cases
- Appellate court's power to reverse acquittal
