Case Note & Summary
The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act -- The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of cheque worth Rs.3,80,000 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,65,000 with compensation of Rs.7,60,000 -- The First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal and refused to admit additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. -- The High Court found that the appellate court properly exercised discretion in refusing additional evidence as existing evidence was sufficient -- The presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act was properly invoked and the petitioner failed to rebut it -- No jurisdictional error was found in the concurrent findings of the courts below -- Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act maintained However order qua imposition of cost set aside-- Revision allowed in part
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Sections 391, 397 and 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-- Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque-- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act filed-- Conviction-- Appeal-- Dismissal of appeal-- Revision preferred by petitioner/accused against concurrent findings of conviction-- Additional evidence at the stage of appeal u/s 391 of CRPC-- Case of Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Supra) referred-- Cases referred-- No dispute that the cheque was belonged to the petitioner/accsued and signature found thereon of petitioner/accused-- Cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement of insufficient funds/wants of funds-- Cheque dishonoured twice-- Respondent/complainant placed on record necessary oral and documentary evidence for discharging initial burden-- Complainant also produced invoice, GST certificate and tax paid receipts in respect of sale of trailers to the petitioner-- Plea for additional evidence at the stage of appeal to produce extract of R.T.O and Form A issued by RTO raised by petitioner-- Documents pertaining to year 2017 and 2020 -- Documents obtained by petitioner after filing of an appeal-- Sufficient opportunity was available to the petitioner to produce evidence at the stage of trial-- After thought additional evidence-- No substance in the plea to lead additional evidence-- Existence of legally recoverable debt-- No case of additional evidence made out-- Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act maintained However imposition of cost of Rs 5000/- set aside-- Revision partly allowed Para-- 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 53, 58
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of consideration mentioned in the Judgment was whether the First Appellate Court was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and whether the conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition -- The conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence imposed were upheld -- The First Appellate Court's refusal to admit additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. was found proper
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favor of holder of cheque
- Burden of proof shifts to accused to rebut presumption
- Appellate court's discretion under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.) regarding additional evidence
- Scope of revision under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is limited to jurisdictional errors
- Concurrent findings of fact by two courts below are not to be interfered with lightly
