Dismissed

Jose v.J., v. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Aug 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/621/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court dismissed in revision a cheque dishonour case challenging conviction by Sessions Court. Bench held limited revisional power does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent gross miscarriage of justice or non-consideration of relevant materials.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Accused granted four months time to pay fine/compensation; directed to surrender.

Jose v.J., Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 621 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2019 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.139/2017 OF

¶7

THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA AND JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2017 IN S.T.NO.87/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THODUPUZHA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

JOSE V.J., AGED 65 YEARS,S/O. JOSEPH, VADAKKEL HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686673. BY ADVS. V.H.JASMINE SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE SMT.RAHMATH C.A.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1 SREE GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600024, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOMY M.C. (SENIOR BUSINESS MANAGER), THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 685584. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SR PP - P G MANU

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Dated this the 8 th day of August, 2023

¶17

This revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C. for convenience). The revision petitioner is the sole accused in S.T. No.87/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha and the appellant in Crl.A. No.139/2017 on the files of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. The respondents herein are the original complainant as well as State of Kerala.

¶18

I would like to refer the parties in this revision petition as 'accused' and 'complainant', for convenience.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, representing State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/complainant.

¶20

In this matter, the complainant launched prosecution against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶21

¶22

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶23

Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as N.I.Act for convenience), when cheque for Rs.1,35,240/- dated 09.07.2014 was dishonored due to the reason “fund insufficient”. Since the accused failed to make the payment on demand, the complainant lodged complaint under Section 142 of the N.I.Act.

¶24

The trial court secured the presence of accused and complainant for trial and finally tried the matter. During trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 marked on the side of the complainant. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., when opportunity was given, no witness examined and no exhibits marked in the side of the defense.

¶25

Thereafter, the trial court appraised the evidence and finally convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,35,240/- and the fine was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of two months also was imposed.

¶26

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶27

¶28

Although, the accused challenged the conviction

¶29

and sentence imposed by the trial court, before the Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and confirmed the conviction imposed by the trial court.

¶30

While attempting to upset the concurrent verdicts, the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the execution of Ext.P8 cheque in favour of the complainant is not proved. Similarly the transaction also not proved. But one of the cheques handed over to the complainant as security in a chitty transaction was misused by the complainant and instituted a false case against the accused. Hence, the complainant failed to prove the transaction and execution of Ext.P8 cheque. Therefore the conviction and sentence are liable to the set aside.

¶31

Apart from that, nothing argued by the learned counsel for the accused to unsettle the concurrent verdicts.

¶32

In this matter, on perusal of the judgments under challenge, it could be gathered that, the courts below given emphasis to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P11

¶33

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶34

¶35

to hold that the complainant succeeded in establishing the transaction led to execution of Exts.P8 cheque. Therefore, the courts below given benefit of twin presumptions in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act.

¶36

11. Law regarding presumption is well settled. In this connection, I would like to refer a 3 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [2010 (2) KLT 682 (SC)], Rangappa v. Sri.Mohan . In the above decision, the Apex Court considered the presumption available to a complainant in a prosecution punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and held as under:

¶37

“The presumption mandated by S.139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat [2008 (1) KLT 425 (SC)] may not be correct. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. S.139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been

¶38

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶39

¶40

included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While S.138 of the Act specified a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under S.139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by S.138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under S.139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. Accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not

¶41

¶42

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶43

need to adduce evidence of his/her own.”

¶44

In the decision reported in [2019 (1) KLT 598 (SC) : 2019 (1) KHC 774 : (2019) 4 SCC 197 : 2019 (1) KLD 420 : 2019 (2) KLJ 205 : AIR 2019 SC 2446 : 2019 CriLJ 3227], Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar , the Apex Court while dealing with a case where the accused has a contention that the cheque issued was a blank cheque, it was held as under:

¶45

“A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of S.138 would be attracted. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.”

¶46

¶47

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶48

In a latest 3 Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [2021 (2) KHC 517 : 2021 KHC OnLine 6063 :

¶49

2021 (1) KLD 527 : 2021 (2) SCALE 434 : ILR 2021 (1) Ker. 855 : 2021 (5) SCC 283 : 2021 (1) KLT OnLine 1132], M/s.Kalamani Tex & anr. v. P.Balasubramanian the Apex Court considered the amplitude of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act it was held as under:

¶50

“Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the Trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under S.118 and S.139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these `reverse onus' clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. Once the 2^nd Appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the Deed, the Trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The Trial Court fell in error when it called upon the Complainant-Respondent to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay.

¶51

¶52

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶53

18. Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019 (1) KHC 774 : (2019) 4 SCC 197 : 2019 (1) KLD 420 : 2019 (1) KLT 598 : 2019 (2) KLJ 205 : AIR 2019 SC 2446 : 2019 CriLJ 3227], P.36., where

¶54

this Court held that:

¶55

“Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”

¶56

The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the execution of Ext.P8 cheque in favour of the complainant is not proved. Similarly the transaction also not proved. But one of the cheques handed over to the complainant as security in a chitty transaction was misused by the complainant and instituted a false case against the accused. Hence, the complainant failed to prove the transaction and execution of Ext.P8 cheque. Though, this

¶57

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶58

¶59

contention was raised before the Courts below, the Courts below negatived the same, relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.P1 to P11 and thereby the benefit of twin presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act was adjudged in favour of the complainant. In fact, nothing substantiated to revisit the concurrent findings, by exercising the limited power of revision available to this Court.

¶60

15. In this context, I am inclined to refer the power of revision available to this Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 397, which is not wide and exhaustive to re-appreciate the evidence to have a contra finding. In the decision reported in [(1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , the Apex Court, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, laid down the following principles (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5):

¶61

“5. …... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is

¶62

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶63

¶64

one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ...”

¶65

In another decision reported in [(2015) 3 SCC 123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19], Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke , the Apex Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on

¶66

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶67

¶68

the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in para.14 (SCC p.135) :

¶69

“14. …... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaring unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.”

¶70

The said ratio has been followed in a latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in [(2018) 8 SCC 165], Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda . Thus the law is clear

¶71

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶72

¶73

on the point that the whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence had already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. To put it otherwise, if there is nonconsideration of any relevant materials, which would go to the root of the matter or any fundamental violation of the principle of law, then only the power of revision would be made available.

¶74

In fact, nothing substantiated in this revision petition to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction as well as sentence of imprisonment, in any manner.

¶75

In the result, this revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶76

Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for

¶77

Crl.R.P No. 621 of 2020

¶78

¶79

the petitioner sought for six months time to pay the compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that four months time can be given to pay the compensation. Considering the fact that, the cheque is of the year 2014 and the amount as Rs.1,35,240/-, I am inclined to grant four months time to the accused from today to pay the fine/compensation and to undergo the sentence.

¶80

Therefore, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the trial court on 08 .12.2023 to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine. If the revision petitioner/accused fails to surrender, as directed, the trial court shall execute the sentence as per law without fail. The execution of sentence stands deferred till 07.12.2023.

¶81

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court for information and compliance within seven days.

¶82

Sd/-

¶83

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶84

Jose v.J., v. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose v.J., v. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naja Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs Chandran

Chachiyamma Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Joy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Flourish Vs Akhila

Ahammed Kunhi K. Vs State