The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal, filed against the judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) was ordered to be dismissed. The Court observed that the accused has a right to rebut the presumption, which gets triggered by his admission and he cannot be convicted merely based on the admission of the signatures.
Brief Facts:
The complainant approached the complainant to supply the tyres for his vehicle on a credit basis and assured him to pay the amount within a short period. The complainant supplied the tyre to the accused worth ₹57,000/-. The complainant demanded the amount from the accused. The accused issued a cheque for the repayment of the amount. The complainant presented the aforesaid cheque before the bank but the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused but the accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice; hence, the complaint was filed before the Court. The accused was acquitted by the Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The evidence led by the accused was highly improbable as his evidence was inconsistent. He stated that he had worked as a driver in the truck of the complainant, which version was falsified by his cross-examination. The credibility of the accused was highly suspect and learned Trial Court erred in relying upon the testimony of the accused.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Learned Trial Court had taken a correct view after properly appreciating the evidence. The complainant had asserted in the complaint that the cheque was issued after some days, whereas, he stated on oath that the cheque was issued on the date of the sale, which falsifies the plea taken by him in the complaint.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that there is a variation in the plea set up in the complaint and the statement on oath and the learned Trial Court was justified in adversely commenting upon the same. The very basis of the complaint that the cheque was issued for discharging the liability towards the cost of the tyre purchased for the vehicle has been made doubtful.
The Court observed that the version of the complainant is not reliable and is sufficient to rebut the presumption of consideration attached to the cheque; therefore, no advantage can be derived by the complainant from the inconsistency in the statement of the accused. The admission of the signatures would trigger the presumption under Section 139. However, the admission of the signatures of the accused on the cheque is not sufficient to convict him. The accused has a right to rebut the presumption, which gets triggered by his admission and he cannot be convicted merely based on the admission of the signatures.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the evidence of the complainant and the statement of the DW1 was sufficient to rebut the presumption.
Case Title: Bhoop Singh v Prakash Thakur
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case No.: Cr. Appeal No.482 of 2018
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Romesh Verma
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. M.A. Safee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
