Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Upholds Conviction for Dishonour of Cheques. The High Court's finding of guilt was upheld as the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against a judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after reversing a trial court's acquittal. The appellant had purchased nonwoven fabric from the complainant, issuing two cheques in payment, which were later dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant sent legal notices, which the appellant ignored, leading to the filing of complaints under Section 138. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding that the complainant did not prove delivery of goods. However, the High Court found that the complainant had established the issuance of cheques in relation to the goods supplied, and the appellant failed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 139. The court noted that the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not substantive evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the quasicriminal nature of proceedings under Section 138 and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption. The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the fine or serve the sentence as per the High Court's judgment.

Headnote

A) Negotiable Instruments - Dishonour of Cheque - Offence under Section 138 - Burden of Proof - The High Court affirmed the trial court's reversal of acquittal, holding that the complainant discharged the burden of proof that the cheques were issued in lieu of goods supplied, and the appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139. The court emphasized that the appellant's mere denial was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof (Paras 7-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and ordered compliance with the High Court's judgment regarding payment of fine or serving the sentence.

Law Points

  • Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • Section 138
  • Section 139
  • Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973
  • Section 313
  • presumption of consideration
  • burden of proof
  • quasicriminal nature of proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (03) 232

Criminal Appeal No(s). 292 of 2021

2021-03-09

Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi

Sumeti Vij

M/s Paramount Tech Fab Industries

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to overturn the conviction and acquittal by the High Court.

Filing Reason

The appellant was accused of issuing cheques that were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Previous Decisions

The trial court had previously acquitted the appellant, which was reversed by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the appellant was guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whether the presumption of consideration was rebutted by the appellant.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the complainant failed to prove delivery of goods and that mere issuance of cheques was insufficient. The complainant contended that sufficient evidence was provided to establish the issuance of cheques in lieu of goods supplied.

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove otherwise, and mere denial is insufficient to rebut this presumption.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30th April, 2019 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court on reappraisal of the evidence on record affirmed that the primary burden was discharged by the complainant that the cheques were issued by the appellant in lieu of the material supplied. The object of introducing Section 138 and other provisions of Chapter XVII in the Act appears to be to enhance the acceptability of cheques in the settlement of liabilities.

Procedural History

The appellant was initially acquitted by the trial court on 28th September, 2012. The complainant appealed to the High Court, which reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant on 30th April, 2019. The appellant then filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138, Section 139
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Delhi High Court Allows Arbitration Against Guarantors Despite Moratorium Under Section 96 of IBC — Moratorium Does Not Extend to Co-Guarantors Not Covered by NCLT Orders. The court held that the moratorium under Section 96 is debt-centric and pers...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Government Resolution Reducing Retirement Age of Teachers from 62 to 60 Years. Fixing Retirement Age is a Policy Matter within State's Exclusive Domain and Pending Proposals Not Approved Before Resolution Do Not Entitle Teac...