{"id":302661,"date":"2023-09-29T17:00:29","date_gmt":"2023-09-29T11:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=302661"},"modified":"2023-10-04T19:12:00","modified_gmt":"2023-10-04T13:42:00","slug":"prima-facie-evidence-undated-cheque-security-in-dishonor-of-cheque-case-calcutta-hc-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/29\/prima-facie-evidence-undated-cheque-security-in-dishonor-of-cheque-case-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Need to interpret Section 138 in a manner that preserves the law\u2019s efficacy’: Calcutta High Court sets aside conviction"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> While deciding a revision petition against the order convicting petitioner under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>, Shampa Dutt (Paul),*<\/span> J., held that the presumption of liability has been rebutted by the petitioner, and the dishonored cheque did not constitute an offence in this case. The Court set aside the petitioner\u2019s conviction under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>, and acquitted the petitioner. The Court ordered for returning the deposited amount to the petitioner.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

The instant case involves a criminal revision petition against the order dated 29-11-2019 passed by the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, affirming the order dated 20-04-2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.<\/p>\n

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>, and sentenced to imprisonment until rising of the court by way of detention inside the courtroom. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000\/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year.<\/p>\n

The case stems from a complaint filed by the opposite party against the petitioner for issuing a dishonored cheque. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had a business transaction with him, and a cheque was issued as part of the transaction. However, the cheque was dishonored due to \u201cDrawer Signature Incomplete.\u201d The complainant sent a demand notice to the petitioner, and upon non-payment, initiated legal proceedings.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Whether the lower courts erred in their judgment by mechanically affirming the petitioner\u2019s conviction under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>?<\/li>\n
  2. Whether the lower courts failed to consider important factors, such as the closure of the petitioner\u2019s business, the clearance of dues, and the purpose of the issued cheque, leading to an erroneous conviction?<\/li>\n
  3. \n

    Whether the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption of liability under Section 139<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Parties\u2019 Contentions<\/p>\n

    The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the evidence presented. It was contended that there was no application of judicial mind, and both the Appellate Court and the Trial Court reached an erroneous finding of guilt.<\/p>\n

    The petitioner contended that the complainant admitted that the petitioner\u2019s business had closed before the cheque was issued, rendering the issuance of the cheque after business closure irrelevant. It was contended that the petitioner had cleared all dues before closing the business, as evidenced by Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C. It was further contended that the impugned cheque was issued without mentioning any date, serving as security, and was later presented by the complainant with ulterior motives.<\/p>\n

    The respondent contended that the petitioner admitted to issuing the cheque as a means to discharge his liability. It was contended that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court correctly passed their judgments, and there is no need for interference.<\/p>\n

    Legal Points<\/p>\n