Raj Kumar vs Satish Thakur

Sandeep Sharma, J

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Ss.397/401 CrPC lays challenge to judgment dated 8.8.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, in Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2022, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.7.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, Chamba, in Criminal Complaint No. 23 of 2017, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner –accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days and pay compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakh to the respondent/complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the complainant instituted complaint under S.138 of the Act in the competent court of law alleging therein, that he had advanced Rs.1,86,000 to the accused on his request, who with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheques bearing Nos. 1470270 dated 14.12.2016, 1470271 dated 17.12.2016 and 140272 dated 20.12.2016, amoungint to Rs.50,000/- each, drawn at UCO Bank, Shahpur, but the fact remains that the aforesaid cheques on presentation, were returned with the endorsement “funds insufficient” and “drawer signatures differ”. Since despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make good payment within the stipulated time ,complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S. 138 of the Act. Learned trial Court held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Chamba but the same was dismissed. In the aforesaid background, the accused approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below.

Vide order dated 7.12.2022, this court suspended the substantive imposed by learned court below upon the accused, subject to accused depositing entire amount of compensation, however, the fact remains that the said order never came to be complied with.

Though, this court repeatedly adjourned the matter enabling petitioner to deposit the amount but today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions, this court may decide the case on merit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment laid challenge in this court, this court is not inclined to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that learned courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, this court finds that both the learned courts below after having scanned evidence led on record rightly came to the conclusion that the cheques were issued by accused towards discharge of his lawful liability, which were dishonoured. Since, at no point of time, specific denial, if any, ever came to be put forth by accused that he had not issued the cheques and signatures thereupon are not his, presumption under Ss.!18 and 139 of the Act, rightly came to be applied to the case of the petitioner.

Section 118 and 139 of the Act clearly provide that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. True, it is that to rebut aforesaid presumption accused can always raise probable defence either by leading some positive evidence or by referring to the material, if any adduced on record by the complainant.

Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, wherein, it has been held as under:

“18. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant. The aspect relevant for consideration had been as to whether the accused-appellant has brought on record such facts/material/circumstances which could be of a reasonably probable defence.

In order to discharge his burden, the accused put forward the defence that in fact, he had had the monetary transaction with the said Shri Jagdishbhai and not with the complainant. In view of such a plea of the accused-appellant, the question for consideration is as to whether the accused-appellant has shown a reasonable probability of existence of any transaction with Shri Jagdishbhai? In this regard, significant it is to notice that apart from making certain suggestions in the cross-examination, the accused- appellant has not adduced any documentary evidence to satisfy even primarily that there had been some monetary transaction of himself with Shri Jagdishbhai. Of course, one of the allegations of the appellant is that the said stamp paper was given to Shri Jagdishbhai and another factor relied upon is that Shri Jagdishbhai had signed on the stamp paper in question and not the complainant.

19.1 We have examined the statement of Shri Jagdishbhai as also the said writing on stamp papers and are unable to find any substance in the suggestions made on behalf of the accused-appellant.

19.2 The said witness Shri Jagdishbhai, while pointing out his acquaintance and friendship with the appellant as also with the respondent, asserted in his examination-in-chief, inter alia, as under:

"Accused when he comes to our shop where the complainant in the matter Shashimohan also be present that in both the complainant and accused being our friends, were made acquaintance with each other. The accused had necessity of money in his business, in my presence, had demanded Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs fifty thousandly) on temporary basis. And thereafter, the complainant from his family members by taking in piecemeal had given to the accused in my presence. Thereafter, on demanding the money by the complainant, the accused had given seven (7) cheques to the complainant in our presence but such cheques being washed out in rainy water and on informing me by the complainant I had informed to the accused. Thereafter, Rohitbhai had given other seven (7) cheques to the complainant in my presence and the deed was executed on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in there is my signature."

19.3 This witness was cross-examined on various aspects as regards the particulars in the writing on the stamp paper and the date and time of the transactions. In regard to the defence as put in the cross-examination, the witness stated as under:

"I have got shop in National Plaza but in rain no water logging has taken place. It is not true that there had been no financial dealings between me and the accused today. It is not true that I had given rupees ten lacs to the accused Rohitbhai on temporary basis. It is not true that for the amount given to the accused, I had taken seven blank duly cheques also blank stamp paper without signature. It is not true that there was quarrel between me and the accused in the matter of payment of interest. It is not true that even after the payment of Rs. ten lacs and the huge amount of the interest in the matter of interest quarrel was made. It is not true that due to the reason of quarrel with the accused, in the cheques of the accused lying with me by making obstinate writing has filed the false complaint through Shashimohan Goyanka. It is not true that no financial dealings have taken place between the complainant and the accused. therefore I also the complainant both at the time of evidence the accused at what place, on what date at what time, the amount taken has not been able to make clearly. (sic) It is not true that the blank stamp paper duly signed were lying in which obstinate writing has been made therefore the same has not been registered through sub registrar. It is not true that the dealings have been made between me and accused therefore there is my signature and the signature of the accused and the complainant has not signed. It is not true that any types of dealings between the accused and the complainant having not been done in my presence therefore in my statement no clarification has been given. It is not true that the accused in my presence as mentioned in the complaint any cheque has not been given. It is not true that I in collusion with the complainant to usurp the false amount the false complaint has been filed through Shashimohan Goyanka. It is not true that in support of the complaint of Shashimohan Goyanka is giving false statement."

19.4 The statement of Shri Jagdishbhai does not make out any case in favour of the accused-appellant. It is difficult to say that by merely putting the suggestion about the alleged dealing to Shri Jagdishbhai, the accused- appellant has been able to discharge his burden of bringing on record such material which could tilt the preponderance of probabilities in his favour.

19.5 The acknowledgement on the stamp paper as executed by the appellant on 21.03.2007 had been marked with different exhibit numbers in these 7 cases. In Complaint Case No. 46499 of 2008, the same is marked as Ex. 54 and reads as under :

"Today the executor I Rohit Patel Ranchhodray Masala is a partner. Due to the financial difficulties having been arised, I have taken Rs.22,500,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand fifty thousand only- sic) from my group which are to be paid to Shashimohan Goyanka.

With reference to that today I have given seven (7) cheques of Corporation Bank, Alkapuri Branch bearing No. 763346 to 762252 amounting to Rs. 22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs fifty thousand only) Dates : (1) 01/4/08, (2) 01/05/08 (3) 01/07/08, (4) 01/08/08 (5) 01/10/08 (6) 01/11/08 (7) 01/12/08 the account of which is 40007.

Earliest these cheques were given but due to rainy water logging the said cheques having been washed out (7) cheques have again been given which is acceptable to me."

19.6 The fact of the matter remains that the appellant could not deny his signatures on the said writing but attempted to suggest that his signatures were available on the blank stamp paper with Shri Jagdishbhai. This suggestion is too remote and too uncertain to be accepted. No cogent reason is available for the appellant signing a blank stamp paper. It is also indisputable that the cheques as mentioned therein with all the relevant particulars like cheque numbers, name of Bank and account number are of the same cheques which form the subject matter of these complaint cases. The said document bears the date 21.03.2007 and the cheques were post-dated, starting from 01.04.2008 and ending at 01.12.2008. There appears absolutely no reason to discard this writing from consideration.

19.7 One of the factors highlighted on behalf of the appellant is that the said writing does not bear the signature of the complainant but and instead, it bears the signatures of said Shri Jagdishbhai. We find nothing unusual or objectionable if the said writing does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The said writing is not in the nature of any bi partite agreement to be signed by the parties thereto. It had been a writing in the nature of acknowledgement by the accused-appellant about existence of a debt; about his liability to repay the same to the complainant; about his having issued seven post-dated cheques; about the particulars of such cheques; and about the fact that the cheques given earlier had washed away in the rain water logging. Obviously, this writing, to be worth its evidentially value, had to bear the signatures of the accused, which it does. It is not unusual to have a witness to such a document so as to add to its authenticity; and, in the given status and relationship of the parties, Shri Jagdishbhai would have been the best witness for the purpose. His signatures on this document, therefore, occur as being the witness thereto. This document cannot be ruled out of consideration and existing this writing, the preponderance of probabilities lean heavily against the accused-appellant.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Laxmi Dyechem V. State of Gujarat, 2013(1) RCR(Criminal), has categorically held that if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. To raise probable defence, accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant. Needless to say, if the accused/drawer of the cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding commission of the offence comes into play.

It would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras No.23 to 25 of the judgment herein:-

“23. Further, a three judge Bench of this Court in the matter of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan [3] held that Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies the strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of the cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. The Court however, further observed that it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose money is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof”. The Court further observed that it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is all preponderance of probabilities.

Therefore, if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is inconceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce the evidence of his/her own. If however, the accused/drawer of a cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, obviously statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act regarding commission of the offence comes into play if the same is not rebutted with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant.

It is no doubt true that the dishonour of cheques in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act precedes a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon by allowing him to avail the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque and it is only when the drawer despite the receipt of such a notice and despite the opportunity to make the payment within the time stipulated under the statute does not pay the amount, that the said default would be considered a dishonour constituting an offence, hence punishable. But even in such cases, the question whether or not there was lawfully recoverable debt or liability for discharge whereof the cheque was issued, would be a matter that the trial court will have to examine having regard to the evidence adduced before it keeping in view the statutory presumption that unless rebutted, the cheque is presumed to have been issued for a valid consideration. In view of this the responsibility of the trial judge while issuing summons to conduct the trial in matters where there has been instruction to stop payment despite sufficiency of funds and whether the same would be a sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, would be extremely heavy.”

In the instant case, at no point of time, petitioner denied his having borrowed sum of Rs.3.00 lakh from the petitioner rather, while making statement under S.313 CrPC, he simply stated that he had not issued cheques. Opportunity was afforded by learned court below to accused to lead evidence in defence, but same was not availed by him.

Though, in the case at hand, accused made an attempt to set up a case that the cheque in question never came to be issued towards lawful liability but as a security, however as has been noticed herein above, there is statutory presumption under Ss. 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the holder of cheque i.e. complainant, which is undisputedly rebuttable. Once signatures on the cheque are not disputed, rather stand duly admitted, aforesaid plea with regard to cheque having not been issued towards lawful liability, rightly came to be rejected by learned Courts below. At this stage, reliance is placed upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bartender Nath Bannerji, (2001) 6 SCC 16, wherein it has been held as under:

“The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted......"

Complainant examined Balwant Singh an official of the bank as CW -1 and himself as CW-2. He also tendered his evidence and dishonour memo Exhibit. CW-1/A to CW-1/A to CW-1/F, cheques Exhibits CW-2/B to CW-2/D, copy of legal notice, Exhibit. CW-2/E and postal receipt, Exhibit. CW-2/F.

Complainant Satish Thakur deposed before learned trial Court that an amount of 1,86,000/- was due from the accused and for this purpose he had issued cheques Exhibits. CW-2/B to CW-2/D. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness, nowhere suggests that the accused was able to extract anything contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief.

Asst. Manager SBI, Samot CW-1 successfully proved that the cheques were presented to the bank for clearance but same could not be cleared on account of ‘funds insufficient’ and ‘difference in signatures of the accused.’ Though as has been taken note hereinabove, an attempt was made to set up a case that the cheques were not issued by the accused, but once accused admitted his liability and he nowhere succeeded in proving that the amount taken by him from complainant was returned, coupled with the fact that signatures upon the instrument were also not denied, onus was upon accused to rebut the evidence led by the complainant however, he has failed to do so. If the evidence, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by complainant is perused, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has proved all the basic ingredients as required to be proved to bring the case within the ambit of S. 138 of the Act.

In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Courts below are upheld. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled/discharged. Accused is directed to surrender before learned trial Court to undergo the sentence, forthwith.

The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.