Case Title: SRI. JITHENDRA KUMAR N.M vs. SRI. T. GURURAJ
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2158/2018
Dated on: 27th MAY, 2024
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
Facts:
The appellant, Sri. Jithendra Kumar N.M., appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Sri. T. Gururaj, by the trial court in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant claimed that the respondent, a relative, borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs in October 2013 and issued a cheque for repayment, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite admitting the loan and issuing the cheque, the respondent argued that the debt was repaid and the cheque was given as a blank security instrument. The trial court acquitted the respondent, but the HC, noting the respondent’s admissions and lack of evidence of repayment, found the acquittal erroneous and decided to interfere with the judgment.
Issue framed by the Court:
- Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is arbitrary, erroneous, and perverse so as to call for any interference by this Court.
Legal Provisions:
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: It states about the offence of dishonouring a cheque for insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arranged amount.
Section 313 of Cr.P.C: It empowers the court to examine the accused.
Section 139 of the N.I. Act: Presumption in favour of holder.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant, Sri. Jithendra Kumar N.M., contended that the respondent, Sri. T. Gururaj, had admitted to borrowing Rs. 5 lakhs and issuing a cheque for repayment, which bounced due to insufficient funds. The appellant argued that this admission and the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act favored him, establishing the cheque as issued towards a legally enforceable debt. He asserted that the trial court erroneously acquitted the respondent by not properly considering these admissions and the legal presumptions. Therefore, he sought the reversal of the acquittal and the conviction of the respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent, Sri. T. Gururaj, contended that although he admitted to borrow Rs. 5 lakhs from the appellant and issuing a cheque, the loan had already been repaid. He argued that the cheque was given as a blank security instrument at the time of the loan’s advancement. The respondent’s counsel emphasized that the presumption in favor of the appellant had been rebutted by evidence elicited during cross-examination, including the assertion that blank cheques were obtained by the appellant. The respondent maintained that the trial court correctly acquitted him, having properly appreciated these aspects, and thus sought the dismissal of the appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
The Court analyzed that the respondent had admitted to borrow Rs. 5 lakhs and issuing the cheque in his reply notice, thereby establishing the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent failed to substantiate his claim of loan repayment as he did not provide evidence or enter the witness box. The trial court’s judgment was found to be erroneous as it overlooked these admissions and focused on irrelevant aspects, such as other criminal cases against the respondent’s wife. Consequently, the High Court found the acquittal arbitrary and erroneous, deciding to set it aside and convict the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, while also considering the conduct of both parties in determining the sentence.
“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
