Case Note & Summary
The present criminal revision application was filed by Yogesh Premjibhai Suvariya and another (the petitioners/accused) challenging the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anjar-Kutch in Criminal Case No. 584 of 2012, whereby the magistrate rejected their discharge application (Exh.17). The petitioners also challenged the subsequent order dated 02.03.2023 framing charge against them. The background facts are that the complainant, Anilbhai Vashrambhai Savadiya, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners placed two purchase orders dated 14.11.2011 and 21.11.2011 for 293 metric tonnes of TMT steel bars, for which they issued ten cheques totalling Rs.1.19 crores. The complainant delivered the goods in November 2011, but upon presentation, all cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners sought discharge contending that there was no legally enforceable debt and that the cheques were given as security. The magistrate rejected the discharge application, holding that a prima facie case was made out. The High Court, in revision, examined the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and held that at the stage of framing charge, only a prima facie case is required, and the defence of the accused cannot be considered. The court noted that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act operates in favour of the complainant, and the accused must rebut it at trial. The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view unless the order is perverse or illegal. Finding no perversity, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the magistrate's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge Application - Section 227 Cr.P.C. - Prima Facie Case - The petitioners sought discharge contending no legally enforceable debt existed, but the Magistrate found sufficient material to frame charge. The High Court held that at the stage of framing charge, only a prima facie case is required, and the defence of the accused cannot be considered. (Paras 1-10) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption of Debt - The complaint alleged that cheques were issued for supply of steel and were dishonoured. The court noted that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act operates in favour of the complainant, and the accused must rebut it at trial. (Paras 2-5) C) Criminal Revision - Scope of Interference - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Limited Jurisdiction - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view unless the order is perverse or illegal. The impugned order was found to be based on material evidence, hence no interference warranted. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the discharge application and framing charge against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the discharge application and the subsequent order framing charge.
Law Points
- Discharge application
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Prima facie case
- Revision jurisdiction
- Interference with framing of charge
