Mobile View Share Link

Premium Members Advanced Search Case Removal

Search

Warning on Translation Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer Download Court Copy
Select Language
Powered by Translate

Select the following parts of the judgment

Facts Issues Petitioner's Arguments Respondent's Arguments

Precedent Analysis Court's Reasoning Conclusion

For entire document

Mark above structure Remove all markings

Select how this document cites others

Mark all cite-texts View only cite-texts Select cite ... Remove cite-text markings

Filter cite-text by sentiment

Relied by Party Accepted by Court Negatively Viewed by Court No clear sentiment

[Cites 7, Cited by 8]

Top Tags
Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches presumption-in-favour-of-cheque-holder, benefit-of-
your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month. doubt-to-cheque-holder
cheque-dishonour
Bombay High Court negotiable-instrument-drawn-for-consideration
examine-accused
Navneetdas Narayandas Barshikar vs Bacchubhai Mulji Tanna on 1 December, 2011
negotiable-instruments

User Queries
legally enforceable debts
legally enforceable debt or liability,
"legally enforceable debt"
dishonour of cheque
no debt liability
presumption under section 139
amount of cheque more than
legally enforceable
legally enforceable liability
legal debt
enforcable debt
funds insufficient
cheque presented more than once
legal debt liability
punishment under section 138
ankleshwar
section 118 a
preponderance
urban cooperative bank
the negotiable instruments act 1881
 (1) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2000

Navneetdas Narayandas Barshikar,

Age : 72 years, .. Appellant

Occupation : Nil, (Original

R/o. Station Road, Ahmednagar. complainant)

versus

1. Bacchubhai Mulji Tanna,

Proprietor of B.M.T. Industries,

Age : Major,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. 17, 16, 17, Nilkanth Shopping

Arched, Near Vijaya Bank,

Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071.

2. The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents

through Public Prosecutor, (No.1 - Original
High Court Bench, accused)

Aurangabad.

.......................

Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

Mr. S.N. Kendre, Additional Public Prosecutor,

for respondent no.2.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:29 :::

(2) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000

........................

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

Date of reserving the

judgment : 17th November 2011.

Date of pronouncing the

judgment : 1st December 2011.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant (original complainant) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated
16th August 2000, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.3, Ahmednagar, in Summary Criminal Case
No. 1093/1998, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused.

4. The factual matrix of the matter is as mentioned below:

 The appellant (original complainant), namely, Navneetdas s/o. Narayandas Barshikar, is resident of Ahmednagar and
carries on business there, whereas the respondent (original accused), namely, Bacchubhai s/o. Mulji Tanna, is resident of
Mumbai, and is proprietor of B.M.T. Industries. It is alleged that the accused purchased goods worth Rs. 2,00,000/- from
the complainant on credit, on 11-6-1996, and issued cheque bearing No. 235406 of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on
31-1-1998 towards part payment, and the accused assured that the said cheque would be honoured. Accordingly, the
complainant presented the said cheque on 4-2-1998 for encashment purpose in Nagar Urban Cooperative Bank,
Ahmednagar. However, the said cheque was dishonoured and was returned unpaid by the said Bank on 11-2-1998, with
the endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Hence, the complainant immediately sent a letter to the accused on 11-2-1998 by
courier. It is alleged that on receipt of the said letter, accused requested the complainant to present the said cheque once
again with the assurance that the said cheque would be honoured definitely. Relying upon the said assurance, the
complainant again presented the said cheque on 17-2-1998 for encashment purpose. However, the said cheque was again
dishonoured and returned unpaid due to 'insufficient funds'. The information about dishonour of the said cheque was
received by the complainant on 23-2-1998. After receipt of the said information from the Bank, the complainant issued
notice to the accused on 26-2-1998, through Advocate, demanding the cheque amount. The Postal Department gave
information of the said notice to the accused on 3-3-1998, but still the accused failed to make payment of the said cheque
amount to the complainant, and hence, it is alleged that the accused deceived the complainant deliberately and
intentionally, and also committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence,
the complainant filed complaint on 25-3-1998, against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The verification of the complaint was recorded and process came to be issued against the accused on 16-7-1998.

The accused appeared therein and his plea was recorded on 28-6-1999, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.

5. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant examined as many as three witnesses, namely :

(1) PW 1 Navnitdas s/o. Narayandas Barshikar -

Complainant himself.

(2) PW 2 Madhusudan Rao Keli - Deputy Manager of Vysya Bank, Mumbai, and (3) PW 3 Subhash Kachardas Luniya -

Employee of Nagar Urban Cooperative Bank, Ahmednagar.

Moreover, the complainant also produced documentary evidence, such as, disputed cheque in question, at Exhibit 20; letter
issued by the complainant to Shri Ashishbhai i.e. son of the accused, Exhibit 21; letter issued by the complainant to Shri
Ashishbhai, Exhibit 22; copy of the notice Exhibit 23; memos issued by the Bank, Exhibits 38 and 39; and delivery challan
Exhibit 24.

6. However, the accused neither examined himself nor examined any defence witness, but put forth his defence through cross
examination of the complainant and his witnesses, and also through his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and also produced some documents on record. The accused stated therein that "The goods in question
were sent by complainant's son for repairs and reconditioning under the name and style as 'Priya Traders' and not for sale. The
cheque was not delivered by me personally and I have no dealings with complainant. I do not want to lead any evidence." In
substance, defence of the accused is that the cheque in question, was not issued by the accused to the complainant towards
repayment of any dues and there was no business transaction between them in that respect.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced / produced by the complainant and the accused, as well as,
considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that
the cheque in question, was not issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt /
liability, and therefore, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, by the impugned judgment and order dated 16th August 2000. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and
order of acquittal, the appellant i.e. original complainant has filed the present appeal assailing the same.

8. While adducing the oral evidence, the complainant i.e. PW 1 Navnitdas s/o. Narayandas Barshikar, stated that he is dealing
with the business of selling and purchase of machinery, whereas accused is proprietor of his business, and in 1996 also, the
accused had purchased machinery from him worth Rs.

2,00,000/-, and the said machinery was delivered by him to the accused through road transport. Thereafter, the complainant
demanded money from the accused repeatedly. Thereafter, accused sent him cheque of Rs. 50,000/- as a part payment along
with letter at Ahmednagar, and the said cheque is produced at Exhibit 20, and the letter bearing signature of Ashish, son of
accused, is produced at Exhibit 21. The said cheque was presented by him for encashment purpose, but the same was
dishonoured and returned unpaid with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Hence, he sent a letter to the accused through courier
and copy thereof is produced at Exhibit 22. Thereafter, the accused informed the complainant on phone, that he should present
the same cheque again and assured that it would be honoured.

Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheque again, but the same was again dishonoured with the endorsement
'insufficient funds and account inoperative'. Hence, the complainant issued notice by RPAD to the accused, through Advocate.
Copy thereof is produced at Exhibit 23. However, the accused failed to make payment of the said cheque within the stipulated
period. Hence, the complainant filed complaint against the accused.

9. During the cross examination, the complainant PW 1 Navnitdas has admitted that he is not running any factory anywhere.
He had given advertisement for sale of machinery and the accused alone approached him for purchase of machinery, in
question. However, he does not remember the date on which the accused came to Ahmednagar for purchase of machinery. He
also stated that he knew the accused prior to the transaction in dispute. He also stated that he has no other transaction besides
the transaction in dispute with the accused. He further stated that he was also dealing with sale and purchase of goods,
machinery, papers, etc.. He also stated that he does not know whether there was any transaction between accused and his son.
He further stated that he is income tax payer and showed transaction of sale of Rs. 2,00,000/- of machinery in his return of
income in the year 1996-97. He further stated that he has maintained sale and purchase register and the subject matter of
transaction in the present case is mentioned therein.

10. He was shown the delivery challan of 'Priya Traders', dated 11-6-1996, and thereupon he stated that it bears signature of his
son which is marked as Exhibit 24. However, he stated that he does not know the contents of the said document. He denied that
his son was running factory under the name and style as 'Priya Traders'. He also denied that the contents of the said document
Exhibit 24 are in the handwriting of his son. He further denied that the machinery of Priya Traders were pledged with M.S.F.C.
against the loan obtained by him. He also denied that neither his son nor he himself have any right to sell the machinery of
Priya Traders. He also denied that the boilers which were referred by him earlier are mentioned in Exhibit 24.

He further stated that he does not know whether the said boilers and other machines are still lying with the accused for repairs
and maintenance which were delivered by his son.

11. The accused put up his case, that the complainant had obtained cheque having signature of accused from his son
unknowingly, but the same was denied by the complainant. The complainant, however, admitted that the name of his son is
Ashish. He also admitted that he had sent letter to the son of the accused after dishonour of cheque, however, he has not lodged
any complaint against son of the accused. He has further admitted that he has not sent any letter to the accused in respect of
dishonour of cheque. Thereafter, specific question was put to the complainant, whether accused had sent any letter in respect of
cheque subject matter of this case. Thereupon, he stated that the son of the accused had sent letter along with cheque which was
sent on behalf of accused i.e. Exhibit 21.

12. P.W.2 Madhusudan Rao Keli, who is authorized Deputy Manager of Vysya Bank Ltd., Chembur, Mumbai, produced the
authority letter Exhibit 36, addressed by the Branch Manager to the Asst. Superintendent, C.J.M. Court, Ahmednagar, stating
that he was authorized by Branch Manager to attend the court. He brought the relevant registers and stated that B.M.T. (10) Cri.
Appeal No. 425 of 2000 Industries was having account in his Bank in the year 1998, and cheque bearing No. 235406 was
presented to his Bank on 6-2-1998 for collection, but it was not honoured because of insufficient funds, and entry to that effect
was made on 6-2-1998 in the concerned register i.e. cheque return register. He produced certified copy thereof at Exhibit 37;
Memo dated 6-2-1998 prepared by the Bank is produced at Exhibit 38. He has stated that the cheque was again presented on
18-2-1998, and it was again dishonoured because account was closed. The second memo issued by the Bank is produced at
Exhibit 39. He has stated that the account was not in operation since funds were insufficient, and hence, cheque was
dishonoured. He has further stated that the contents of Exhibit 39 i.e. second memo, that 'account closed', are not correct.

13. P.W.3 Subhash s/o. Kachardas Luniya has stated that he was serving in Nagar Urban Cooperative Bank and the complainant
was having bank account in his bank. The complainant deposited the cheque in question, drawn on Vysya Bank, Bombay, for
collection, and copy of voucher is produced at Exhibit 44. He has further stated that the said cheque was forwarded to Vysya
Bank, Chembur, Bombay, but it was dishonoured. Accordingly, entry was made in the record and cheque return register and the
said entry is marked as Exhibit 45.

(11) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 He has further stated that the said cheque was again presented on 12-2-1998 and challan is
produced at Exhibit 46, but the said cheque was again returned due to 'insufficient funds' and account not in operation and entry
was made on 21-2-1998 which is at Exhibit 47. He has further stated that he does not know if the Bank has filed suit against the
complainant for recovery of Rs.

25,00,000/-. He has also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the record and entries.

14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has canvassed that the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act has been raised in favour of the complainant, that the accused issued the cheque in question, to the
complainant towards discharge of liability / debt partly or in whole. In the said context, the complainant examined himself, as
well as, examined other two witnesses as mentioned herein above, as well as, adduced / produced oral and documentary
evidence, and on the basis of the said oral and documentary evidence, presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act has been raised against the accused, as aforesaid. However, the accused neither examined himself
nor examined any defence witness, but simply cross examined the complainant and his witnesses. It is also canvassed by the
learned Counsel for the appellant, that there is no specific defence of the accused put (12) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 forth by
him and the accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption raised against him, even on preponderance of probability.
Moreover, it is submitted that the complainant presented the said cheque twice but it was dishonoured for both the times.
Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused, through Advocate, on 26-2-1998 and copy thereof is produced at
Exhibit 23, and the said notice was received by the accused. However, still the accused failed to make payment of the said
cheque amount within stipulated period of 15 days from the receipt thereof. Hence, the cause of action arose for the
complainant to file the complaint since offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was
completed.

15. It is further submitted that the complainant has proved and established beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed cheque in
question, was issued by the accused to the complainant towards legally enforceable debt / liability. To substantiate the said
contentions, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon judicial pronouncements of (i) learned Single Judge of this
Court, in the case of Bapurao s/o. Motiram Mankar Vs. Shri Vyankatesh Housing Agency, Nagpur, and another, reported at
2010(6) Mh.L.J. 71, and (ii) learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Pioneer Drip Systems Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and
another Vs. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Jalgaon, reported at (13) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 458, and urged
that the present Appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal,
dated 16th August 2000, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.3, Ahmednagar.

16. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 (original accused), countered the said arguments vehemently, and submitted that
although the initial presumption has been raised in favour of the complainant under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, on the strength of the oral and documentary evidence adduced / produced by the complainant, the said
presumption is rebuttable since the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reversible presumption
and the test required therefor is on preponderance of probability. In the said context, learned Counsel for the accused canvassed
that although the accused has neither examined himself nor examined any defence witness in support of the said defence, the
accused has put forth defence through cross examination of the complainant and his witnesses, and also through his statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and also by production of documents in that regard.
Accordingly, learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the defence of the accused is that there was no business (14) Cri.
Appeal No. 425 of 2000 transaction between the complainant and accused in respect of the disputed cheque in question, and
the goods, in question, were sent by complainant's son for repair and reconditioning under the name and style 'Priya Traders'
and not for sale and the cheque was not delivered by the accused to the complainant personally since he has no dealing with the
complainant. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, the accused has proved and established the said defence on
preponderance of probability and made out a case that the said defence is a probable defence.

Hence, it is canvassed that the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and
therefore, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove and establish beyond reasonable doubt that there existed legally
enforceable debt / liability against the accused on the date of issuance of the cheque and the cheque in question was issued by
the accused to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt / liability, partly or in whole. However, learned
Counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant failed to discharge the said burden, and hence, learned trial court
rightly acquitted the accused, and therefore, no interference therein is called for in the present appeal. To substantiate the said
contentions, learned Counsel for the accused has relied upon judicial pronouncement of the Hon. Apex Court, in the case of
Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, reported at (15) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases
54, and urged that the present appeal be dismissed.

17. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced / produced by the complainant, as well as, considered the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, anxiously, and also considered the judicial pronouncements cited
by the learned Counsel for the parties, carefully, and at the outset, covering letter of the cheque in question, i.e. letter dated 30-
1-1998, Exhibit 21, clinches the issue in controversy, which discloses that the said letter has been written by Mr. Ashish Tanna,
Proprietor of B.M.T. Industrial Chemical Pvt. Ltd, to the complainant herein, namely, Navnitbhai Barshikar, and the contents of
the said letter are as follows :

B.M.T. Industries (Proprietor B.M.T. Industries Chemical Pvt. Ltd.) 15-16-17, Neelkanth Shopping Arcade, 1st Flr., Nr.
Vijaya Bank, Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Date : 30/01/1998 (16) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 To,
Navnitbhai Barshikar, "Motinarayan", 181, Bhutkarwadi, Ahmednagar - 414 001.

Dear Sir, Sub :- Cheque No. 235406 for Rs. 50,000/-.

Enclosing herewith Cheque as per telephonic discussion with our Shri Bachubhai Mulji Tanna bearing Cheque No. 235406 for
Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) drawn on The Vysya Bank Ltd., Chembur Branch, towards Sale of 2 Boiler to M/s.
Kanva Hydro-chem Ltd., Ankleshwar.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of the same and oblige.

Thanking you in anticipation, Yours faithfully, For B.M.T. Industries (Prop. B.M.T. Industrial Chemical Pvt. Ltd.) (Sd/-)
(Ashish B. Tanna) Director.

(17) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 Hence, it is implicitly clear from the contents of the said covering letter, dated 30-1-1998, of
disputed cheque in question, that the said letter was issued by the son of the accused, namely, Ashish Tanna, to the complainant
and not by accused to the complainant. Moreover, contents of the said letter state that the said cheque of Rs. 50,000/- refers to
the transaction of sale of 2 Boilers to M/s.

Kanva Hydro-chem Ltd., Ankleshwar, and the cheque in question, was issued towards said transaction by the son of the
accused to the complainant, and obviously, the said cheque was not issued by the accused to the complainant, since there is no
dealing between them in that respect. Moreover, a specific question was put to the complainant in the cross examination,
"Whether accused had sent any letter in respect of cheque subject matter of this case ?", and thereupon the complainant replied
that, "The son of accused had sent letter along with cheque which was sent on behalf of accused." Hence, suggestion was put to
him that he was in need of money, and therefore, he obtained cheque from the son of the accused, but the same was denied by
him, as well as, suggestion was given to him that the accused had not entered into any transaction of purchase of machinery
with him, but the same was also denied by him.

18. Pertinently, it is material to note that after dishonour of the said cheque for the first time, the complainant issued (18) Cri.
Appeal No. 425 of 2000 notice to the son of the accused, namely, Ashishbhai, on 11-2-1998, and not to the accused, and the
same is produced at Exhibit 22.

19. Keeping in mind the said aspect, and coming to the another document i.e. delivery challan, Exhibit 24, of Priya Traders,
dated 11-6-1996, and when said document was confronted to the complainant in cross examination, he stated that it bears
signature of his son, but denied that his son was running factory under the name and style as 'Priya Traders', and also denied
that the handwriting on the said challan Exhibit 24 pertain to his son, and also denied that the machinery of Priya Traders were
pledged with M.S.F.C. against the loan obtained by him, as well as, denied that either his son or he himself have any right to
sell the machinery of Priya Traders. He has further denied that the boilers, which were referred by him earlier, are mentioned in
challan Exhibit 24, and stated that he does not know whether the said boilers and other machines are still lying with accused for
the purpose of repairs and maintenance which were delivered by his son.

20. Considering the said testimony of the complainant, one thing is clear that the challan of Priya Traders, dated 11-6-1996,
Exhibit 24, bears signature of son of the accused, as (19) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 admitted by the complainant, and the
said challan refers to boilers with accessories and other old machinery for reconditioning and repair, to be returned, as well as,
date of the said challan i.e. 11-6-1996 is very material since very complaint of the complainant refers to the said date i.e. 11-6-
1996, on which date, the accused allegedly took the material worth Rs.

2,00,000/- on credit. Moreover, it is also curious to note that even assuming the contention of the complainant, that the
transaction pertain to 11-6-1996, without admitting it, then the question arises, how the cheque in question, was issued after
substantial period of one and half year i.e. on 30-1-1998, towards part payment of the said transaction. Having cumulative
effect of the averment in the complaint, in respect of the transaction dated 11-6-1996, then challan dated 11-6-1996 i.e. Exhibit
24, disputed cheque in question, of alleged transaction for Rs. 50,000/- and its covering letter dated 30-1-1998 i.e. Exhibit 21,
issued by the son of the accused, namely, Ashish Tanna, making reference therein, that the said cheque in question, of Rs.
50,000/- was drawn towards the sale of 2 Boilers to M/s. Kanva Hydro-chem Ltd., Ankleshwar, it is apparently clear that the
disputed cheque in question, was issued for different transaction and not towards any business dealing between the complainant
and accused, and hence, it is further apparently clear that the accused has rebutted the presumption raised against him under
Section 139 of the (20) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 Negotiable Instruments Act, on preponderance of probability.

21. In this scenario, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove and establish beyond reasonable doubt, that there existed
legally enforceable debt / liability against the accused, at the time of issuance of disputed cheque in question, and the cheque in
question, was issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt / liability, partly or in
whole. However, the complainant has neither produced any cogent legal evidence in that respect, nor produced any accounts,
and nor produced any bills / receipts showing the dealing between the complainant and accused in respect of the business
transaction pertaining to the disputed cheque in question, and hence, it is crystal clear that the complainant failed to prove and
establish beyond reasonable doubt, that at the time of issuance of disputed cheque in question, there existed any legally
enforceable debt / liability against the accused and the disputed cheque in question, was issued by the accused to the
complainant towards the discharge of said legally enforceable debt / liability, partly or in whole.

22. In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court,
while acquitting the accused, for the offence punishable (21) Cri. Appeal No. 425 of 2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse.

Moreover, reasoning given by the learned trial court, for acquittal of the accused, also cannot be faulted with, and hence, no
interference therein is called for, and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the present
appeal.

23. In the result, present Criminal Appeal, which is sans merits, stands dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal of
the respondent no.1 herein i.e. original accused, dated 16th August 2000, stands confirmed.

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE .........................

bgp/425kapp