The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that despite having an opportunity, the Accused-Appellant did not put any question to the bank official examined in defense for establishing his plea of purported mismatch of the signature on the cheque in question. It was opined it is for the accused to rebut such presumptions by leading appropriate defence evidence and the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused to collect evidence on his behalf.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant was prosecuted for the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with an allegation that the cheque issued by the appellant upon being presented in the bank was dishonored “for insufficient funds and account dormant”.
The trial Court proceeded to convict the Accused-Appellant. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge and filed an application under Section 391 CrPC for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage.Such application was rejected by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge which was carried by the Appellant to the High Court which came to be dismissed by order which was under challenge in the present appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The Court firstly noted that the power to record additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.
During the trial, the appellant examined the witness of the Bank of Baroda in support of his defense but not a single question was put to the said witness regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures as appearing on the cheque in question.
It was observed that if the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defense for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque. However, despite having an opportunity, the accused-appellant did not put any question to the bank official examined in defense for establishing his plea of purported mismatch of the signature on the cheque in question and hence, the appellate Court was not required to come to the aid and assistance of the appellant for collecting defense evidence at his behest.
It was held that the presumptions under the NI Act albeit rebuttable operate in favour of the complainant. Further, the Bench propounded that it is for the accused to rebut such presumptions by leading appropriate defense evidence and the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused in collecting evidence on his behalf.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v State of Gujarat & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 58 SC
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava
Advocate for the Respondents: Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
