1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NOS. 72, 73 AND 74 OF 2008 Shri Prakash Rao Son of Ganpat Rao Aged 45 years, service, Kamal Apt. 2nd floor, New Vaddem, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. ... Applicant versus 1. Shri Pedro Vincent Dias, son of Shri Caetano Dias, aged 43, businessman, House No.19/1, Nonmon Waddo, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 2. State Through Public Prosecutor, Panaji. ... Respondents Shri S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the Applicant/accused. Shri M. P. Almeida, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Complainant. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT These revision petitions can be conveniently disposed off by this common Judgment. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaints. 2 2. They have been filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced for dishonour of three cheques, details of which are as follows:- Cri. Rev.Appln.Nos. C.C.Nos. Cheque Nos. I 72/08 1387/OA/NIA/05/D 772303 dated 26-6-2005 for Rs.2,52,800/-. II 73/08 553/OA/NI/2006/D 772305 dated 20-7-2005 for Rs.5,15,000/-. III 74/08 132/OA/NIA/06/A 772304 dated 6-7-2005 for Rs.5,25,500/-. 3. In the first case, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- to the Complainant, and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. In the second case, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- to the Complainant, and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. In the third case, the accused has been sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.5,25,500/- to the Complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The first and the second cases were decided by the same Judicial Magistrate while the third case was decided by another Judicial Magistrate. 3 4. The accused having filed appeals against the said convictions/sentences, the same came to be dismissed. In the first two cases, appeals came to be dismissed by Orders dated 8-8-2008 and in the third case the appeal came to be dismissed by Order dated 11-8-2008. It is the same Additional Sessions Judge who has decided all the three appeals. 5. These revisions were adjourned from time to time as the Complainant and the Accused showed an inclination to settle the matters by making payments due on the said cheques. On 2-3-2010 the Applicant/Accused was given time upto 15-3-2010. As the payment could not be made by the said date, the matters came up for final hearing yesterday and accordingly arguments were heard. 6. Shri M. P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1/Complainant has submitted that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact, and, therefore they may not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has further submitted that it is not the case of the accused that the findings rendered by the Courts below are perverse. Learned Counsel also submits that all points raised on behalf of the accused have been considered by both the Courts below, and, therefore no interference is called for. 4 7. On the other hand, Shri S. Singbal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Accused has made certain submissions which I will dispose off, briefly but before that, a reference is required to be made to the respective case/s of the Complainant and of the accused. 8. The case of the Complainant was that in May, 2005, the accused was facing financial crunch and on 1-5-2005 the accused approached the Complainant for a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- with a promise to return the money by 21-6-2005 and accordingly, on 6-5-2005 the Complainant advanced Rs.2,52,800/- to the accused against receipt and in presence of one Inacio Dias. The accused also executed an agreement and towards discharge gave the said cheque. In the second case, a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- was given on 12-7-2005 to be returned by 20-7-2005, and, in the third case a sum of Rs.5,25,500/- was given on 23-6-2005 to be returned by 6-7-2005. The Complainant and the accused were friends and the said money was advanced out of bond of friendship. In the first two cases, one Inacio Dias was present at the time of making the advance. In each of the cases, the accused issued a receipt acknowledging the advance and also executed an agreement cum guarantee for repayment and towards the discharge the accused issued the said cheques which the Complainant deposited but were returned dishonoured on different dates on account of insufficient funds. 5 9. The Complainant addressed notices dated 29-9-2005, 15-2-2006 and 28-11-2005 in each of the cases which the accused received but did not reply or comply and as such the Complainant filed the said complaints and in support thereof examined himself and produced the relevant documents including the receipts as well as the agreements cum guarantee. 10. The case of the accused was that the said cheques were given under threats and the accused did not owe any amount to the Complainant. The accused examined himself, and after considering the evidence produced by both the parties and upon hearing the arguments, the learned J.M.F.C. came to the conclusion that the Complainant had successfully proved that the accused had issued the cheque/s in question towards discharge of liability; that the cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused and that the accused did not pay the amount inspite of receipt of demand notice, and accordingly proceeded to convict the accused as aforesaid. 11. As stated on behalf of the parties, it appears that the accused has also been convicted in respect of another cheque for Rs.4,80,000/- dated 1-9-2005 and the appeal against the said conviction is pending before the Court of Sessions. 6 12. From the Judgments of the learned trial Courts, it appears that besides the said documents, the Complainant had also produced letters written by the accused requesting the Complainant not to deposit the cheques for a few weeks as he was in financial crisis and was unable to make arrangements to deposit sufficient money in the Bank. 13. The first submission made by Shri S. Singbal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused is that the accused was a money lender and since the accused did not have a Money Lender's License the money lent by the accused could not be recovered. In my view, this submission is without any merit. There is absolutely no foundation for this submission in the cross- examination of the Complainant. Not even a suggestion was put to him in that regard. Not a statement is also made by the accused in that regard, in his evidence. Learned Counsel points out to a statement of the Complainant wherein he stated that “I do not have any licence”. That cannot be interpreted to say that the Complainant did not have a Money Lender's Licence. It is well settled as stated by this Court in Armstrong Builders(2007(1) MH.L.J. 787) a money lender envisages only a person whose regular business is to advance monies and not a person who advances casually, and that too out of friendship. 14. Next, learned Counsel submits that the subject cheques as well as the other documents were executed by the accused under threats. That 7 submission has been rejected by the learned appellate Court in para 18 of the Judgment dated 8-8-2008 in the first case by, inter alia, observing that except for making a bare statement that the Complainant had threatened him to issue the cheque/s there was no other material to establish the alleged threat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed as follows: “The accused vide receipt at exhibit 30 has also acknowledged receipt of said amount of Rs.2,52,800/- as a temporary loan. The accused has also executed an agreement cum guarantee exhibit 6, vide which, the accused has admitted that on 06.05.05 he took loan of Rs.2,52,800/- from the complainant as he was badly in need of money urgently to meet family requirements and partly to clear some debts and that in consideration thereof, he has issued cheque no. 772303 dated 21-06-05 for said amount. Vide said Agreement cum Guarantee of repayment, he had also promised and guaranteed to pay said amount latest by 22.06.05. He has also stated in said Agreement, that he would be executing said Agreement cum Guarantee of repayment of his own volition. Vide exhibit 29, letter dated 28.06.05, the accused then informed the Complainant that he needs more money for business; that he had run into some crisis and unable to arrange for the money and, therefore, requested for more time of few weeks to make the repayment. On 01-09-05, vide exhibit 31, the accused again regretted for his inability to maintain sufficient amount in his account and pleaded for 90 days time 8 assuring the repayment of the loan. Vide exhibit 32, letter dated 28-07-05, the accused acknowledged receipt of the loan amount in question as well as some other loans; expressed his obligation for helping him in need and not claiming any interest on said amount and pleaded some more time of six weeks. All these documents sufficiently prove that the accused had taken loan of Rs.2,52,800/- and towards repayment of said amount, had issued the cheque in question in favour of the Complainant. It is difficult to believe that the complainant had obtained the said cheque under threats. If it was issued under threats, the accused has failed to explain why subsequently, he has written letters to the Complainant acknowledging receipt of loan amount and pleading for more time to deposit the amount in his bank account. The accused has also mentioned in the letter exhibit 32 that besides said loan amount of Rs.2,52,800/-, the Complainant had also advanced him two more sums of Rs.5,25,000/- and Rs.5,15,000/- for which he had issued cheques towards repayment. It is difficult to believe that the accused could maintain silence if the Complainant was attempting to extract such huge sums from him. The normal behaviour would have been to lodge a complaint against the Complainant. All these documents support the case of the Complainant that he had advanced amount of Rs.2,52,800/- to the accused. The cheque issued towards repayment was, therefore, for consideration. The accused has failed to prove any threats allegedly received by him from the Complainant”. 9 15. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the third case in Judgment dated 11-8-2008, in para 17, observed that the accused himself had admitted that even recently he had visited the residence of the Complainant as his relations with the Complainant were friendly and if the Complainant had given threats to kill him and obtained the four cheques for a total sum of Rs.17,00,000/- and also certain documents, thereby incurring huge monetary liability it is difficult to believe that the accused would still maintain friendly relations with the Complainant and visit him after filing of the cases, and this only showed the falsity of the case of accused. It may also be noted that after the cheques issued by the accused bounced the accused even issued letters to the Complainant requesting the Complainant not to deposit the cheque/s for a few weeks as he was unable to make arrangements to deposit sufficient money in the Bank. That would not have been the conduct of a person who had issued the cheques under threats from the Complainant. 16. Shri Singbal next submits that this is a fit case for remand for further cross-examination of the Complainant as the learned J.M.F.C. did not provide adequate opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the Complainant. However, Shri Singbal fairly concedes that the accused did not challenge the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11-4-2007 closing further cross-examination by the accused nor the order/s refusing to recall the Complainant for further cross-examination pursuant to applications filed under 10 Section 311 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has noted that the examination-in-chief of the Complainant was recorded on 2-3-2007 and the matter was adjourned to 9-3-2007 for reply and arguments on an application filed on behalf of the Complainant seeking leave of the Court to produce some documents. On 9-3-2007, the accused filed an application for adjournment and thereafter the case was fixed on 26-3-2007. Again on that day the Advocate of the accused prayed for adjournment which was granted as a final opportunity and the matter was adjourned for further cross-examination on 28-3-2007. On this day, the accused filed yet another application seeking time to engage a new Advocate which was granted to the accused as last opportunity and the matter was fixed for further trial on 11-4-2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has noted that on this day further examination-in-chief of the Complainant was recorded and the Complainant produced some documents but the Advocate of the accused appeared when the matter was called for the third time on that day and sought time to cross-examine the Complainant and that the learned Magistrate had noted that on two previous hearings final opportunity was given to the accused and inspite of that the accused had again asked for time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the accused was given sufficient time to enable him to cross-examine the witness but inspite of opportunities having been given, the accused had prayed for further time, and, therefore the learned J.M.F.C. chose to close the cross- examination of the Complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also 11 observed that the matter was fixed for further trial on 9-3-2007 and not specifically for cross-examination, which in the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge included examination-in-chief as well as cross- examination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also noted that inspite of the accused having been given two final opportunities the accused prayed for further time without any justification for asking further time. 17. In my view, considering the facts of the case, this is not a fit case for remand at this stage. As already noted the accused could have challenged the said Order dated 11-4-2007 of the learned Magistrate closing further cross- examination of the Complainant or the order refusing to recall the Complainant for further cross-examination but on the contrary the accused chose not to challenge the said orders and chose to give his own evidence on 23-4-2007. The accused had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the Complainant but chose not to avail the same, and even otherwise considering the facts of the case it is too late in the day to remand the case for further cross-examination of the Complainant when, a last opportunity is given, it is expected of the parties to take the matters more seriously and make best of it as no adjournment would generally be given. The accused was not diligent at all to avail both the last opportunities given to him to cross-examine the Complainant. 12 18. The next submission of learned Counsel Shri Singbal, is with reference to Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned Counsel submits that the sums lent by the Complainant to the accused are not reflected in the tax returns and this the accused had categorically stated in his affidavit in evidence and therefore the transactions could not be believed. Learned Counsel has submitted that since the money was above Rs.20,000/- it was required to be paid by payee cheque or account payee bank draft as required by Section 269-SS and since the sums were not paid by the Complainant to the accused either by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft the amount would not be recoverable and as such there would be no debt or liability to be recovered from the accused. In this connection, Shri Singbal has placed reliance on Judgments in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde(AIR 2008 SC 1325), Mrs. Sayeeda Iqbal Vakil v. Mr. Javed Abdul Latif Shaikh and another(2008 ALL MR(Cri) 2743), Rajendrarasad Gangabishen Porwal v. Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha and another(2008 CR.L.J. 2955), Shri Vinay Parulekar v. Shri Pramod Meshram(2008 CRI.L.J. 2405), and particularly on Sanjay Mishra v. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another(2009 Cri.L.J. 3777). 19. On the other hand, Shri Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant submits that the money was returnable within a short period of time in each of the cases, and, therefore there was no question 13 of showing the same in any accounts or in the Income Tax Returns as according to the learned Counsel, the Income Tax returns would have been filed at the close of the financial year. 20. I have perused the Judgments cited on behalf of the accused by the learned Counsel Shri Singbal. 21. In the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken note both of Sections 269-SS of the Income Tax Act as well as Section 271D, the latter providing for penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of the said Section 269-SS, and considering the peculiar facts of that case, held that the Courts below had proceeded from a wholly wrong angle i.e. wrong applications of legal principles in the fact situation of the case. No departure has been made by the Apex Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case(supra) from the law laid down earlier in various decisions including the three Judge decision in the case of Hiten P. Dalal((2001) 6 SCC 16). The Court only cautioned that the Courts should take note of ground realities and factual matrix of each case and materials brought on record. 22. In the case of Mrs. Sayeeda Iqbal Vakil v. Mr. Javed Abdul Latif Shaikh and another(supra) the Court had referred to another decision 14 reported in Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja v. Vilas Shripati Kamble reported in (2006 ALL MR(Cri) 3203) wherein note was taken that the amount allegedly paid by the Complainant during period was not reflected in the Income Tax Returns as well as in the books of account and therefore for reasons recorded by the Court below on appreciation of evidence on record, impugned Judgment could not have been said to be unreasonable or perverse. 23. In the case of Sanyay Mishra v. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another(supra) reference was made to the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde(supra) and it was stated that merely because the amount advanced was not shown in Income Tax Returns, in every case, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act stands rebutted. If in a given case the amount advanced by the Complainant is large and not repayable within few months, failure to disclose the amount in the Income Tax Returns or books of accounts may be sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The Court took note of the observations of the Apex Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case, which are as follows: “30. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance with legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a Court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises 15 a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability. 31. The Courts below, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded on the basis that Section 139 raises a presumption in regard to existence of a debt also. The Courts below, in our opinion, committed a serious error in proceeding on the basis that for proving the defence the accused is required to step into the witness box and unless he does so he would not be discharging his burden. Such an approach on the part of the Courts, we feel, is not correct”. 24. In my view, considering the facts of this case, the accused can derive no benefit either from Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case(supra) or Sanjay Mishra's case(supra). In this case every amount advanced by the accused was acknowledged by him by a receipt as well an agreement cum guarantee as well later correspondence sent by the accused. Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act only provides for penalty for its non compliance. It does not say that if money is advanced in contravention of that Section, it would be unrecoverable. The Apex Court has also not said so in Krishna Janardhan's case. That is only a factor to be considered in the factual matrix of each case. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the colour of our economy is often 16 more black than white. The documents executed prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt. 25. In the circumstances therefore, I find there is no merit in these revision applications, and, consequently I proceed to dismiss the same. N. A. BRITTO. RD