The Supreme Court reversed the acquittal of an accused in a case for cheque dishonour reiterating presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
Title: Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh
Decided on: 10th October, 2023
SLP (Crl.) No.12802/2022
CORAM: Hon’ble Justices Aravind Kumar and SVN Bhatti
Introduction
The Supreme Court overturned an accused’s acquittal in a case involving a dishonoured cheque by restating the rules governing the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
Facts of the Case
Mr. Ajay Singh (respondent) and his wife asked Mr. Rajesh Jain (appellant) for a loan of money. In person, the appellant argued that he had loaned Mr. Ajay Singh Rs. 6 lakhs on that day and other sums since, with the sincere hope that he would honour his promise of prompt repayment and return the amount borrowed with interest as agreed. The respondent did not make payments by the predetermined deadline. The complainant encountered evasion strategies in his attempts to get his money back.
The accused is alleged to have written a post-dated cheque but the cheque was returned after being presented with the notation “Funds Insufficient.” The complainant sent the defendants a demand letter through his attorney, requesting that they pay back the amount of the cheque. Further to which a complaint under Section 138 of the Northern Ireland Act was brought before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Jind.
Courts analysis and decision
The Trial Court declared the offence to have occurred and determined that the complainant had met his initial burden of establishing the essential facts supporting the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Since the accused had admitted to signing the cheque, the Trial Court properly raised the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. It then correctly noted that the accused had the burden of rebutting the presumption, and that burden had to be met by presenting a “probable defence” that would cast doubt on the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, special leave to appeal was granted to the complainant pursuant to Section 378(4) CrPC. According to the High Court’s reasoning, the accused had met his obligation to refute the statutory presumption posed by Section 139 of the NI Act.The burden of proof therefore moved back to the complainant to establish that the cheque was written in payment of a legally enforceable debt and that the complainant had failed to discharge the obligation.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the burden of proof changes to the accused if the complainant establishes the execution of the cheque in accordance with Section 139 by citing a number of cases. “Until this evidential burden is discharged by the accused, the presumed fact will have to be taken to be true, without expecting the complainant to do anything further.” The Court clarified.
Further, the Court explained : “Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption ‘disappears’ and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does not again come to the complainant’s rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.”
The Court further stated that the burden of proof cannot be discharged just by making some suggestions during the cross-examination; instead, a likely defence must be established. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Trial Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court and sentenced the respondent-accused to a fine equal to twice the value of the cheque, after which he would have been sentenced to a year of simple imprisonment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan