 |
| Defend your Cheque Bounce case Grounds for Acquittal in Section 138 NI |
Defend your Cheque Bounce case: Grounds for Acquittal in Section 138 NI based on Case Analysis
Case Summary:
In the case of Firm, M/S Kanahiya Lal ahamandi Lal
vs. Accused, the appellant, challenged the judgment of an Additional
Sessions Judge dated 29.10.2007, which had quashed the conviction of the
respondent, Accused, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
("the Act"). The lower court had previously convicted the Accused for
issuing dishonored cheques.
Brief Description of the Case:
The complainant firm alleged that the Accused owed them a
substantial sum of money, which included loans taken by both the Accused and his
father. The accused had issued two cheques to repay these loans, but they were
dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds. Despite a legal notice, the Accused
failed to repay the debt, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
The trial court had convicted the Accused based on the complainant's
claims and evidence, sentencing him to imprisonment and imposing a fine.
However, the Additional Sessions Judge later acquitted the Accused in his appeal.
Parties' Contentions:
The appellant argued that the Accused had admitted to
signing the cheques, triggering the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of
the Act. Therefore, it was not the appellant's duty to prove the existence of
the outstanding loan amount. The appellant contended that the Accused never denied
owing money, and the learned Judge erred in acquitting him.
The respondent's counsel argued that the Accused had
consistently denied owing money in both his testimony and his statement under
Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. While the court had raised the
presumption under Section 139, it was rebuttable. The accused had provided evidence
to rebut this presumption, justifying his acquittal.
Referred Judgments with Analysis:
The case referred to Kumar Exports v. Sharma
Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, which discussed the concept of presumptions under
the Act. It emphasized that the presumptions are rebuttable and explained the
burden of proof in cases under Section 138. The accused can either show that
consideration and debt did not exist, or that, under the circumstances,
non-existence is probable. The presumption shifts based on evidence. It
concluded that bare denial of consideration and debt wouldn't suffice; the
accused must provide evidence, whether direct, circumstantial, or based on
presumptions of fact.
Court's Opinion and Conclusion:
The court observed that the Accused had clearly stated in
his examination that he didn't owe any outstanding amount. He provided a
plausible explanation for the possession of signed cheques, stating that the
complainant had taken them as a form of surety. While the Accused admitted to
signing the cheques, he argued that the complainant had filled in the amount
and date, which used different inks, suggesting misuse of the cheques.
The complainant had claimed loans were taken but
failed to produce books of accounts as evidence. The court stressed the
distinction between alleging a fact and proving it. If a presumption is
rebuttable, evidence must be presented. By withholding essential evidence, an
adverse presumption was invoked against the appellant.
The court concluded that since the presumption under
Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable and the Accused successfully rebutted it, the
learned Judge was justified in acquitting him. The court found no illegality or
perversity in the judgment and upheld the acquittal.
This case highlights the importance of evidence in
cheque bounce cases and the rebuttable nature of the presumptions under the
Act, leading to the Accused's acquittal.
The accused, was acquitted based
on several grounds, as highlighted in the case:
1.
Rebuttal of
Presumption: The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. He presented evidence and explanations that cast
doubt on the existence of consideration and debt, effectively challenging the
presumption that the cheques were issued for the discharge of debt or
liability.
2.
Ink Discrepancy: The accused pointed out that
there was a notable difference in the inks used on the cheques. While he
admitted to signing them, he argued that the complainant had filled in the date
and amount, using different inks. This argument suggested the misuse of the
cheques.
3.
Failure to Produce
Evidence:
The complainant, despite alleging the existence of loans, failed to produce the
books of accounts as evidence. This omission weakened their case and allowed
the court to invoke an adverse presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence
Act.
4. Absence of
Corroborative Evidence: The accused consistently denied owing money in his testimony and his
statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His denial, along
with the other evidence presented, indicated that there was no clear
corroborative evidence to establish the debt.
5.
Circumstantial
Evidence and Presumptions: The court acknowledged that the accused may rely on circumstantial
evidence and presumptions of fact to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118
and Section 139 of the Act. The accused effectively utilized these avenues to cast doubt on
the complainant's claims.
In a cheque bounce case, the defense mounted by a
knowledgeable and experienced lawyer can indeed be a game changer. What may
seem like a straightforward conviction to a layperson can, with the right legal
strategy, turn into a successful defense leading to acquittal. An adept lawyer
can challenge the presumption of guilt, present evidence to rebut it, and
highlight inconsistencies in the complainant's claims. They can use their
expertise to ensure that your case is seen as fair and just. In the hands of a
skilled advocate, even seemingly challenging cases can be effectively
navigated, offering a real chance to avoid conviction and protect your rights.
