Case Title: ISHWAR SINGH versus VIDYA SHRI DEVI
Case No.: CRL.L.P. 1/2024, CRL.M.A. 18/2024
Dated on: FEBRUARY 29, 2024
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Facts:
In this case, Ishwar Singh filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in 2016, alleging that Vidya Shri Devi, representing M/s Safemax Industries, issued a cheque for Rs. 3,26,729 as a refund for a failed construction project. The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite issuing a demand notice, no payment was made, leading to the filing of the complaint. The trial court convicted Vidya Shri Devi, but the appellate court acquitted her, accepting her defense that the cheque was stolen and her signature was forged, as supported by an FSL report. Ishwar Singh’s petition for leave to appeal the acquittal was dismissed by the High Court.
Issues framed by the Court:
- Whether the delay of 54 days in filing the petition should be condoned.
- Whether the respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, issued the cheque in question and whether the signatures on the cheque were genuine.
- Whether the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
- Whether the evidence, including the FSL report and testimonies, sufficiently supports the respondent’s defense that the cheque was stolen and not issued by her.
- Whether the petitioner, Ishwar Singh, provided adequate evidence to prove that the cheque was issued by the respondent and to counter the respondent’s claims and the FSL report.
- Whether the appellate court’s decision to acquit the respondent was justified.
Legal Provisions:
Section 5 of the Limitation Act: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.
Section 138 NI Act: It states about the offence of dishonoring a cheque for insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arranged amount.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant, contended that the trial court had rightly convicted the respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, under Section 138 of the NI Act, as she had issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. He argued that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, which assumes the cheque was issued for a discharge of liability and was not adequately rebutted by the respondent. Ishwar Singh challenged the respondent’s defense that the cheque was stolen and her signature was forged, asserting that this claim was not proven during the trial. He also contended that the FSL report, which indicated that the signatures on the cheque did not match the respondent’s specimen signatures, should not be considered conclusive. He emphasized that the respondent’s consistent denial and the corroborative testimonies were insufficient to outweigh the statutory presumption in his favor.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, contended that she did not issue the cheque in question and that her signatures on the cheque were forged. She maintained that the cheque, along with several others, was stolen by an employee. To support her defense, she presented the testimony of her husband and a bank witness, as well as an FSL report which concluded that the signatures on the cheque did not match her specimen signatures. She argued that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds rather than signature mismatch, and highlighted the lack of evidence from the petitioner to prove the cheque was issued by her.
Court’s Analysis & Judgement:
The court analyzed whether the respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for a valid liability. The court noted that the respondent consistently maintained that the cheque was stolen, supported by an FSL report indicating the signatures did not match her sample signatures. The petitioner, Ishwar Singh, failed to contest the FSL report or cross-examine the relevant witnesses. The court found that mere assertions by the petitioner were insufficient to override the respondent’s evidence and expert opinion. Citing the principle that an appellate court should be cautious in overturning an acquittal unless the trial court’s decision is perverse or irrational, the court upheld the appellate court’s acquittal of the respondent. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
