Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case
Accused Sentenced to Imprisonment Until Payment of Compensation; Failure to Pay Results in Additional Jail Time
In a recent ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction of Krishna Devi in a cheque bounce case against the Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. The court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, upheld the decision of the Sessions Judge at Sirmour District, who had previously modified the sentence handed down by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, which accused Krishna Devi of failing to repay a personal loan of Rs. 2,50,000. Devi had defaulted on her loan repayment, with Rs. 1,58,285 remaining unpaid. In an attempt to discharge this liability, she issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000, which was subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving a notice from the bank demanding repayment within 15 days, Devi failed to settle the amount, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
The trial court found Devi guilty of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentencing her to one year of simple imprisonment, a compensation payment of Rs. 3.00 lacs, and an additional two months of imprisonment in case of default in payment. Dissatisfied with the decision, Devi appealed to the Sessions Court, which upheld the trial court's decision but modified the sentence. It ordered that Devi serve imprisonment till the rising of the court upon depositing the compensation amount within two months, failing which she would face a two-month simple imprisonment.
In the current revision petition, Devi contended that the courts below did not adequately consider her argument that the cheque was issued as a security, and thus, the existence of the debt was not proven. However, Justice Kainthla dismissed her petition, citing the Supreme Court's precedents, which establish a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This presumption indicates that when a cheque is issued and signed by the accused, it is presumed to be in discharge of a debt or liability, unless the accused can sufficiently rebut this presumption with evidence, which Devi failed to provide.
Justice Kainthla emphasized that a revision court is not an appellate court and should only address patent defects or jurisdictional errors. The judgment also addressed the issue of a default sentence in case of non-payment of compensation, confirming the legality of imposing such a sentence under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the legal obligations associated with issuing cheques and the implications of failing to fulfill financial liabilities. It underscores the burden on the accused to present evidence to counter the presumption of debt when a cheque is issued and subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Bottom Line:
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) - Once the issuance of a cheque and the signatures on it are admitted, a presumption arises that the cheque was issued for consideration in discharge of debt/liability. The burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption by leading evidence, and mere denial in a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not sufficient.
Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138, 139; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 357(3)
Krishna Devi v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2779728
