Case: Vijay Vs. Laxman

the respondent-accused (since acquitted) had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant-appellant for his personal requirement which was given to him as the relationship between the two was cordial. By way of repayment, the respondent issued a cheque dated 14.08.2007 bearing No.119682 amounting to Rs.1,15,000/- drawn on Vikramaditya Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. Fazalapura, Ujjain in favour of the appellant. The complainant-appellant alleged that on 14.8.2007 when the cheque was presented to the bank for encashment the same was dishonoured by the bank on account of insufficient funds. The complainant-appellant, therefore, issued a legal notice after a few days on 17.8.2007 to the accused-respondent which was not responded as the respondent neither replied to the notice nor paid the said amount4. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-accused is a villager who supplied milk at the dairy of the complainants father in the morning and evening and his father made payment for the supply in the evening. Beyond this part, the case of the respondent-accused is that the complainant took security cheques from all the milk suppliers and used to pay the amount for one year in advance for which the milk had to be supplied. It is on this count that the respondent had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant which was merely by way of amount towards security which was meant to be encashed only if milk was not supplied. Explaining this part of the defence story, one of the witnesses for the defence Jeevan Guru deposed that when any person entered into contract to purchase milk from any person in the village, the dairy owner i.e. the complainants side made payment of one year in advance and in return the milk supplier like the respondent issued cheques of the said amount by way of security. In view of this arrangement, the accused Laxman started supplying milk to the complainants father. In course of settlement of accounts, when accused Laxman asked for return of his security cheque, since he had already supplied milk for that amount to the complainants father Shyam Sunder, he was directed to take back the cheque later on. The accused insisted for return of the security cheque since the account had been settled but the cheque was not given back to the respondent as a result of which an altercation took place between the respondent/accused and the milk supplier due to which the accused lodged a report at the police station on 13.8.2007, since the complainants father Shyam Sunder also assaulted the respondent-accused and abused him who had refused to return the cheque to the respondent-accused which had been issued by him only by way of security. As a counter blast, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment merely to settle scores with the Respondent/milk supplier5. The complaint-appellant, however, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ujjain, who while conducting the summary trial prescribed under the Act considered the material evidence on record and held the Respondent guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and hence recorded an order of conviction of the respondent-accused due to which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- was also imposed. The respondent-accused feeling aggrieved of the order preferred an appeal before the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, M.P. who also was pleased to uphold the order of conviction and hence dismissed the appeal6. The respondent-accused, thereafter, filed a criminal revision in the High Court against the concurrent judgment and orders of the courts below but the High Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and orders of the courts below as it was held that the impugned order of conviction and sentence suffered from grave miscarriage of justice due to non-consideration of the defence evidence of rebuttal which demolished the complainants case.

Reasoning:
in spite of the admitted signature of the respondent-accused on the cheque, it was not available to the respondent-accused to deny the fact that he had not issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for once the signature on the cheque is admitted and the same had been returned on account of insufficient funds, the offence under Section 138 of the Act will clearly be held to have been made out and it was not open for the respondent-accused to urge that although the cheque had been dishonoured, no offence under the Act is made out. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the complainant-appellant on the authority of this Court in the matter of K.N. Beena vs. Muniyappan And Anr. [2001 (7) Scale 331 ] adds sufficient weight to the plea of the complainant-appellant that the burden of proving the consideration for dishonour of the cheque is not on the complainant-appellant, but the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for discharge of a lawful debt or a liability is on the accused and if he fails to discharge such burden, he is liable to be convicted for the offence under the Act. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it is the respondent-accused (since acquitted) who should have discharged the burden that the cheque was given merely by way of security, lay upon the Respondent/ accused to establish that the cheque was not meant to be encashed by the complainant since respondent had already supplied the milk towards the amount. But then the question remains whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondent had succeeded in proving his case that the cheque was merely by way of security deposit which should not have been encashed in the facts and circumstances of the case since inaction to do so was bound to result into conviction and sentence of the Respondent/Accusedwe are of the view that although the cheque might have been duly obtained from its lawful owner i.e. the respondent-accused, it was used for unlawful reason as it appears to have been submitted for encashment on a date when it was not meant to be presented as in that event the respondent would have had no reason to ask for a loan from the complainant if he had the capacity to discharge the loan amount on the date when the cheque had been issued. In any event, it leaves the complainants case in the realm of grave doubt on which the case of conviction and sentence cannot be sustainedthe High Court has rightly set aside the findings recorded by the Courts below and consequently set aside the conviction and sentence since there were glaring inconsistencies in the complainants case giving rise to perverse findings resulting into unwarranted conviction and sentence of the respondent. In fact, the trial court as also the first appellate court of facts seems to have missed the important ingredients of Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which made it incumbent on the courts below to examine the defence evidence of rebuttal as to whether the respondent/accused discharged his burden to disprove the complainants case and recorded the finding only on the basis of the complainants version. On scrutiny of the evidence which we did to avoid unwarranted conviction and miscarriage of justice, we have found that the High Court has rightly overruled the decision of the courts below which were under challenge as the trial court as also the 1st Appellate Court misdirected itself by ignoring the defence version which succeeded in dislodging the complainants case on the strength of convincing evidence and thus discharged the burden envisaged under Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which although speaks of presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, it has included the provisos by incorporating the expressions until the contrary is proved and unless the contrary is proved which are the riders imposed by the Legislature under the aforesaid provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act as the Legislature chooses to provide adequate safeguards in the Act to protect honest drawers from unnecessary harassment but this does not preclude the person against whom presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving to the contrarythe absence of any details of the date on which the loan was advanced as also the absence of any documentary or other evidence to show that any such loan transaction had indeed taken place between the parties is a significant circumstance. So also the fact that the cheque was presented on the day following the altercation between the parties is a circumstance that cannot be brushed away. The version of the respondent that the cheque was not returned to him and the complainant presented the same to wreak vengeance against him is a circumstance that cannot be easily rejected. Super added to all this is the testimony of DW1, Jeevan Guru according to whom the accounts were settled between the father of the complainant and the accused in his presence and upon settlement the accused had demanded return of this cheque given in lieu of the advance. It was further stated by the witness that the complainants father had avoided to return the cheque and promised to do so on some other day. There is no reason much less a cogent one suggested to us for rejecting the deposition of this witness who has testified that after the incident of altercation between the two parties the accused has been supplying milk to the witness as he is also in the same business. Non- examination of the father of the complainant who was said to be present outside the Court hall on the date the complainants statement was recorded also assumes importance. It gives rise to an inference that the non-examination was a deliberate attempt of the prosecution to keep him away from the court for otherwise he would have to accept that the accused was actually supplying milk to him and that the accused was given the price of the milk in advance as per the trade practice in acknowledgement and by way of security for which amount the accused had issued a cheque in question