Supreme Court has upheld the order of conviction where cheque was presented on a closed bank account.
A bench of Justice Banumathi and Justice Roy has passed the order in the case titled as RAHUL SUDHAKAR ANANTWAR vs SHIVKUMAR KANHIYALAL SHRIVASTAV on 21.10.2019.
The appellant-accused had issued a cheque from the account of a firm named Synergy and Solution Incorporation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in order to refund the earnest money to the respondent-complainant. When the said cheque was presented for clearance by the respondentcomplainant the same was returned with the endorsement “Account Closed”. After issuing the legal Notice dated 23.08.2013, the respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the appellant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Upon consideration of evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused on the ground that the cheque was issued from the account of a firm, namely, Synergy and Solution Incorporation and the said account was in the name of one Vipin Dhopte and not in the name of the appellant-accused. The Trial Court also pointed out that the said account was closed due to the negative balance on 11.03.2006.
Te High Court however reversed the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicted him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and also imposed costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) on the appellant.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it upheld the conviction saying "Admittedly, the parties had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 28.02.2012. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent-complainant had paid Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) as an advance/earnest money to the appellantaccused as per the terms of the Agreement. As pointed out by the High Court, the appellant-accused has not disputed his signature on the said cheque presented for clearance. Contention of the appellant that the cheque issued in the name of the Firm, named, Synergy and Solution Incorporation was removed from his office table is not convincing nor the same is supported by any evidence. As pointed by the High Court in the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the appellant-accused has not satisfactorily rebutted the statutory presumption. In view of the above, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the conviction of the appellantaccused under Section 138 of N.I. Act".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
