Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
REPORTABLE
JUDGEMENT
Surya Kant, J:
Leave Granted.
Tiruppur was reversed and the appellants have been convicted under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NIA’).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Vishal Anand
Date: 2021.02.10
16:51:39 IST
Reason:
Consequently, Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo three
Page | 1
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Facts
their reply dated 27.01.2001 denied their liability and claimed that
blank cheques and signed blank stamp papers were issued to help the
Page | 2
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
138 and 142 of the NIA read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
credit that was advanced to him, and the subsequent debt recovery
proceedings initiated against him. The appellants did not lead any
Page | 3
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
of issue of cheque. The Court held that since the basic ingredients of
an offence under Section 138 of the NIA were not satisfied, the
preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court, wherein, the Court
noted that Appellant No.2 had admitted his signatures on both the
Cheque and the Deed of Undertaking and had thus acknowledged the
allowed the criminal appeal and convicted both the appellants under
mentioned at the outset that when the SLP came up for hearing on
this Court.
Page | 4
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CONTENTIONS
to argue the case on merits and contended that there was no legally
Police1, he urged that the view taken by the trial Court was a possible
view, and the High Court committed patent illegality and exceeded its
Court did not take notice of the defence raised by the appellants which
drawn against an accused under Section 118 and Section 139 of the
case.
1
(2012) 10 SCC 383, ¶ 32.
2
(2019) 13 SCC 289, ¶ 20.
3
(2019) 5 SCC 418.
4
(2009) 2 SCC 513.
Page | 5
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
maintained that the decision of the High Court is well reasoned and
Lastly, while pointing out the financial loss suffered by the respondent
and the adverse impact on his business, learned Counsel prayed for
suitable compensation.
ANALYSIS
11. The short question which falls for our consideration is whether
the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court in
impugned judgment. It is true that the High Court would not reverse
that of the trial Court. It is also trite in law that the High Court ought
this Court, justifying the invocation of powers by the High Court under
Section 378 CrPC, if the trial Court had, inter alia, committed a patent
5
CK Dasegowda and Others v. State of Karnatak, (2014) 13 SCC 119 ¶14.
Page | 6
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
finding of fact.6
13. On a similar analogy, the powers of this Court under Article 136
entirety of record merely on the premise that the High Court has
convicted the appellants for the first time in exercise of its appellate
evolved its own limitations on the exercise of powers under Article 136
Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that once
6
State of UP v. Banne, (2009) 4 SCC 271,¶ 27; Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.,
(2008) 10 SCC 450, ¶70.
7
(1974) 4 SCC 201, ¶ 14.
8
(2019) 10 SCC 554, ¶ 12.
9
2020 SCC Online SC 869, ¶ 14.
Page | 7
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
the presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been
15. Once the 2nd Appellant had admitted his signatures on the
cheque and the Deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the
were liable to pay. Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the
10
(2019) 18 SCC 106, ¶ 18.
Page | 8
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
facility with the bank and his failure to update his account led to debt
Page | 9
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were
19. Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business
other relevant material, it appears to us that the High Court did not
imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of the
NIA.
of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory
Page | 10
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple
indicates that neither did the respondent ask for compensation before
the High Court nor has he chosen to challenge the High Court’s
judgment. Since, he has accepted the High Court’s verdict, his claim
the appellant has already deposited with the Registry of this Court.
CONCLUSION:
22. For the reasons stated above, the present appeal is liable to be
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, namely, that the
amount with the Registry of this Court in the year 2018, we are
Page | 11
LL 2021 SC 75
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
………………………….. J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
………..………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
…………………………...J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI
DATED :10.02.2021
Page | 12