Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Triyambak S. Hegde Vs Sripad (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Criminal Appeal Nos. 849-­850 of 2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/09/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Triyambak S. Hegde Vs Sripad (Supreme Court)

Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the signature on the documents at Exhibit P­6 and the cheque at Exhibit P­2 is not disputed by the respondent. In that view, it is contended that the learned JMFC was justified in raising a presumption against the respondent and convicting him since there was no rebuttal evidence or contrary material whatsoever. It is contended that the document at Exhibit P­6 was relied to indicate that there was a transaction entered into between the parties towards which the payment was made but the manner in which the High Court has adverted to the said document is beyond the scope of the requirement in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In that circumstance, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has proceeded at a tangent and has set aside the concurrent judgments of the courts below, though limited scope was available in a Revision Petition.

NI Act | Section 139 Presumption if signature on cheque is admitted

Mr. G.V. Chandrasekar, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial court and the lower appellate court has not examined the case in its correct perspective. Instead, merely because the signature on the cheque was admitted the courts jumped to the conclusion by raising a presumption, though there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant possessed the funds and the same had been actually paid by him to the respondent to constitute legally recoverable debt. It is contended that the High Court was justified in examining and concluding with regard to the circumstance under which the cheque had been signed and, in that light, had set aside the conviction. The order therefore does not call for interference is his contention.

From the facts arising in this case and the nature of the rival contentions, the record would disclose that the signature on the documents at Exhibits P­6 and P­2 is not disputed. Exhibit P­2 is the dishonoured cheque based on which the complaint was filed. From the evidence tendered before the JMFC, it is clear that the respondent has not disputed the signature on the cheque. If that be the position, as noted by the courts below a presumption would arise under Section 139 in favour of the appellant who was the holder of the cheque.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031