LexC. KESHAVAMURTHY versus H.K. ABDUL ZABBAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 429
C. KESHAVAMURTHY
v.
H.K. ABDUL ZABBAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1026 of 2013)
JULY 23, 2013
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]
A
B
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 139 -
Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Conviction by trial court
and appellate court - Acquittal by revisional court -
On
C
appeal, held: Once the complaint case of cheque bouncing
is prima facie established, the burden is on the accused to
disprove the allegations - The accused in the instant case
failed to disprove the a/legation - Hence, order of conviction
upheld.
D
Four cheques issued by respondents, in favour of
the appellants were dishonoured. Appellant filed
complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Respondent took the plea that the cheques were issued
E
in respect of some business transaction and the
payments of the cheques were stopped by him by a
notice. Trial court convicted the respondent not accepting
his plea. Appellate Court confirmed the conviction. In
revision, High Court acquitted him holding that the
respondent had raised an acceptable defence. Hence the
present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: The presumption under Section 139 of the
G
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, includes the
presumption of the existence at a legally enforceable debt
or liability. That presumption is required to be honoured,
and if it is not so done, the entire basis of making these
429
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 8 S.C.R.
A provisions will be lost. Therefore, it is for the accused to
explain his case and defend it once the fact of cheque
bouncing is prima facie established. The burden· is on him
to disprove the allegations once a prima facie case is
made out by the Complainant. In the instant case, it has
B clearly come on record that disputed cheques were
given subsequent to the Notice not to clear the earlier
cheques. There was no explanation as to why the
subsequent cheques could not have been cleared. The
agreement on the basis of which the submission was
c made was not produced in the courts below. That being
so, on facts there was no error on the part of the trial court
as well as the appellate court in the view that they have
taken. [Paras 9 and 11] [433-H; 434-A-B, E-F]
Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441: 2010 (6)
D SCR 507 - relied on.
E
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde 2008
(4) SCC 54: 2008 (1) SCR 605 - referred to.
. Case Law reference:
2008 (1) SCR 605
2010 (6) SCR 507
referred to
relied no
Para 7
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
F No{s). 1026 of 2013.
G
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2008 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl R.P. No. 1295 of
2006.
R.S. Hegde, Girish Anantmurthy, Chandra Prakash, Rajeev
Singh, for the Appellant.
G.V. Chandrashekar, Anjana Chandrashekar for the
Respondent.
C. KESHAVAMURTHY v. H.K. ABDUL ZABBAR
431
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
H.L. GOKHALE, J. 1 Heard Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned
counsel in support of this petition and Mr. G.V. Chandrashekhar,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Leave granted.
3. Both the counsel have made their submissions.
4. The facts giving rise to this criminal appeal are as
follows
A
B
c
The respondent had issued four cheques to the appellant,
which had bounced. Out of the five cheques, a cheque dated
31st July, 2003, was issued for an amount of' 1,36,000/-, and
three other cheques dated 10th August, 2003, 15th AugL1st,
2003 and 18th August, 2003, respectively were for a sum of '
D
One lakh each. Since those cheques got bounced, the appellant
filed a Complaint bearing No.2857 of 2003, in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II, Davangere, in the State of
Karnataka, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881. The case of the appellant is that since these
E
cheques were dishonoured, an appropriate order under the law
was necessary.
5. The defence of the respondent was that there was an
agreement of sale between the parties, and that the
Complainant was a businessman dealing in lands, and it was
F
in that transaction that the respondent had issued some
cheques earlier, but since transaction did not fructify, he had
issued a notice dated 28th July, 2003, not to clear those
cheques. However, this defence could not be accepted for the
G
simple reason that all the cheques, which had bounced were
issued subExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.