Saleena Nazar vs K.B.Bhadran

A. Badharudeen, J

This revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.', for short), by the revision petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.No.25/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Karunagappally, arraying the original complainant as the 1st accused and the State of Kerala as the 2nd respondent.

The revision petitioner impugns judgment in S.T.No.25/2017 dated 28.09.2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Karunagappally and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.115/2018 dated 16.08.2022 on the file of the Sessions Court-V, Kollam arising therefrom.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the 1st respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, on admission.

I shall refer the parties in this revision as 'complainant' and 'accused' for easy reference.

The brief facts of the case put up by the complainant before the trial court are as under:

The complainant launched prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I.Act’) when cheque dated 22.07.2013 for Rs.30,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank, Karunagappally Branch, alleged to be issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of the said sum borrowed on 22.04.2013, got dishonoured.

The trial court secured the presence of the accused for trial. During trial, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant.

On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.and provided opportunity to adduce defence evidence. But no evidence was adduced.

The trial court appraised the evidence and finally found that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakh only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The fine was ordered to be given as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

Though the accused challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court before the Appellate court vide Crl.A.No.115/2018, the learned Additional Sessions Jude-V, Kollam also dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction as well as the sentence imposed by the trial court.

While impugning the veracity of the concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the specific contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that, the accused failed to prove the source of income to pay Rs.13 lakh as contended, in a case where the accused specifically denied borrowing of any amount from the complainant. Further, it is argued that there was no transaction between the accused and complainant and one Smt.Mumthas Bhai, who is a relative of the accused, purchased the property of the nephew of the complainant in the year 2011 and at the time of execution of the said sale deed, Smt.Mumthas Bhai had only an amount of Rs.17 lakh. During the said transaction, Ext.P1 cheque was issued.

In the appellate court, this contention was specifically raised. The appellate court found, on re-appreciation of the evidence, that the accused failed to furnish any materials before the court to prove issuance of cheque to the above said Mumthas Bhai. Further, the appellate court relied on the evidence of PW1, who admitted before the court that, the property of the nephew was purchased by the niece of the accused and he was a witness in the sale deed and the accused was the broker for the said property sale. But PW1’s evidence, in no way suggested that the accused issued a signed blank cheque to the complainant as alleged by the accused in connection with the said property transaction.

The said finding appears to be convincing and as such the said contention now raised before this Court is found to be unsustainable. Similarly, insofar as the challenge against the source of the complainant to advance Rs.13 lakh, which is shown as the consideration for Ext.P1 cheque, the courts below appraised the said contention. In the appellate court judgment, the learned sessions Judge considered the explanation given by PW1 during the cross-examination as regards to the source. It has been observed that PW1 given evidence that she had Rs.8 lakh with her, which was kept for her daughter’s marriage. Rs.2 lakh was repaid by PW2, which PW2 borrowed earlier. Further she borrowed Rs.3 lakh from his relative one Biju. In support of this contention, PW2 had given evidence that he had borrowed Rs.2 lakh from the complainant earlier and he had repaid the amount on the date of transaction. It was contended before the trial court that Biju, to whom from Rs.3 lakh was stated to be borrowed by PW1, was not examined. In fact, non-examination of Biju is of no serious consequences at all, since the evidence of PW1 in this regard is not shaken during cross-examination of PW1. The appellate court also found that the accused herself admitted that the complainant had the financial capacity by raising contention that the accused had issued a signed blank cheque to the complainant to arrange money for purchasing a property in the name of her niece. Because of the above finding, the contention as to source raised by the complainant was negatived by the appellate court as well as the trial court. This Court could not found any illegality in the said finding also.

In this case, the courts below given emphasis to the evidence of PW1, the complainant, and also to the evidence of PW2, who supported repayment of Rs.2 lakh as deposed by the complainant which he borrowed earlier to hold that the complainant discharged his initial burden in the matter of transaction as well as execution of Ext.P1 cheque.

It is the settled law that power of revision available to this Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 397 is not wide and exhaustive to re-appreciate the evidence to have a contra finding. Decisions reported in [(1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri; [(2015) 3 SCC 123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19], Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke; [(2018) 8 SCC 165], Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, are on this point.

No doubt, law regarding presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act also well settled on the point that when the complainant discharged the initial burden to prove the transaction led to execution of the cheque, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act would come into play. No doubt, these presumptions are rebuttable and it is the duty of the accused to rebut the presumptions and the standard of proof of rebuttal is nothing but preponderance of probabilities. It has been settled in law that the accused can either adduce independent evidence or rely on the evidence tendered by the complainant to rebut the presumptions. See decisions reported in [2010 (2) KLT 682 (SC)], Rangappa v. Mohan; [2019 (1) KLT 598 (SC) : 2019 (1) KHC 774 : (2019) 4 SCC 197 : 2019 (1) KLD 420 : 2019 (2) KLJ 205 : AIR 2019 SC 2446 : 2019 CriLJ 3227], Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, [2021 (2) KHC 517 : 2021 KHC OnLine 6063 : 2021 (1) KLD 527 : 2021 (2) SCALE 434 : ILR 2021 (1) Ker. 855 : 2021 (5) SCC 283 : 2021 (1) KLT OnLine 1132], Kalamani Tex (M/s.) & anr. v. P.Balasubramanian.

It is relevant to refer a latest decision of the Apex Court reported in [2022(5) KHC 560(SC)], Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, whereas it has been held that, the fact that the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person would be immaterial. The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.

In this case, the evidence of PW1 supported by PW2 was not taken during the cross-examination to disbelieve the same in any manner. It is true that when the complainant discharged his initial burden in the matter of transaction led to execution of the cheque, the complainant would get benefit of twin presumptions. However, the accused would very well rebut the presumptions by adducing independent evidence or by relying on the evidence otherwise available. In the case on hand, apart from disputing the source of the complainant to advance Rs.13 lakh, for which PW1 had given reasonable evidence during cross-examination, denying the transaction and execution of Ext.P1 cheque, by raising contention that the same was issued to Smt.Mumthas Bhai for the property transaction as alleged and nothing in evidence to prove the said contention. Therefore, the accused miserably failed to rebut the presumptions in favour of the complainant, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Therefore, the concurrent finding of conviction imposed by the trial court does not require any interference. However, the sentence requires modification to meet the ends of justice.

In this matter, the trial court imposed substantive imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.13 lakh. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months also was imposed while ordering payment of fine/compensation to the complainant. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to modify the sentence.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part. Conviction imposed by the trial court as well as the appellate court stands confirmed. the sentence stands modified as under:

The accused/ revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.13 lakh (Rupees thirteen lakh only). If the accused/revision petitioner fails to pay the fine/compensation, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The fine amount shall be given to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

Since the fine amount would come to Rs.13 lakh and in consideration of the fact that the transaction was in the year 2013, I am inclined to grant three months’ time from today to pay the fine/compensation to the accused/ revision petitioner and undergo the sentence. Therefore, the revision petitioner/the accused is directed to appear before the trial court on 25.04.2023 to pay the fine/compensation or to undergo the default sentence. On failure to do so, the trial court is directed to execute the sentence as per law without fail.

Since time granted till 25.04.2023, execution of the sentence shall stand deferred till 24.04.2023

Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the court below concerned for information and compliance.