K.S. RANGANATHA versus VITTAL SHETTY

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 08-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 652
652
K.S. RANGANATHA
v.
VITTAL SHETTY
(Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2011)
DECEMBER 08, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA
AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Dishonour of
cheque – Appellant acquitted by trial court – Acquittal reversed by
High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent successfully discharged
the initial burden cast on him – He established that the cheque signed
by the appellant was issued in his favour towards discharge of a
legally recoverable amount – Parties were known to each other –
Appellant admitted about an earlier transaction where he had
borrowed the amount and repaid – This indicates that the parties
had entered into financial transactions earlier as well and another
transaction was probable between them – Respondent discharged
the burden of proving that the transaction had actually taken place
– To rebut the same, the defence put forth by the appellant that the
documents and cheque in the present proceedings were obtained
by threatening him had already been considered in a separate
proceeding and the respondent was acquitted therein – Acquittal of
the appellant not justified – Impugned judgment not interfered with
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.2(d) r/w 200 – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.365, 342, 323, 506.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.118(a), 139 –
Presumption under – Onus to rebut – Standard of proof – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The legal aspect relating to the presumption
arising in law when a cheque is issued, is to be noted at the
threshold. The initial burden is placed on the complainant to
discharge. When a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by the
drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a
consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such
presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary.
The onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is
on preponderance of probabilities. [Paras 8, 11][658-B-C;
662-G-H]
K.Prakashan vs. P.K. Surendran (2008) 1 SCC 258 :
[2007] 10 SCR 1010; Triyambak S. Hegde vs. Sripad
in Criminal Appeal Nos. 849-850 of 2011 – relied on.
Reverend Mother Marykutty vs. Reni C. Kottaram &
Anr. (2013) 1 SCC 327 : [2012] 9 SCR 530; Kalamani
Tex & Anr. vs. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283 :
2021 (2 ) JT 519 – referred to.
1.2 It was the case of the respondent that the appellant had
borrowed the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- on 12.06.2003 which was
agreed to be repaid with interest in six months. Hence, cheque
No.062589 dated 12.12.2003 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on
Corporation Bank was issued. The respondent had relied on an
‘on demand promissory note’ and had stated that one Mr. ‘HM’
was also present. The said Mr. ‘HM’ who had also signed as
witness to the ‘on demand promissory note’ was not examined
as a witness due to which the trial Judge held the transaction as
not proved and in that context it was held that the respondent
has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However,
the respondent had tendered evidence relating to the cheque
being issued and had discharged the initial burden. The entire
consideration by the Trial Judge to arrive at his conclusion was
predicated on the allegation levelled by the appellant that an
incident had occurred on 20.01.2004 when the respondent is
stated to have obtained the cheque and signatures on certain
blank papers by using force. Much is made about the respondent
having presented the cheque during February 2004 to assume
that he would not have waited that long if the cheque was really
dated 12.12.2003 and was issued earlier. Such an assumption
would not be justified when, in fact, the cheque is dated 12.12.2003
and was presented within its period of validity. To assume the
incident alleged by the appellant to have occurred on 20.01.2004
to be true, the cheque ought to have been dated on or after
20.01.2004. The date of presentation of the cheque is of no
consequence provided it is presented within its validity period.
K.S. RANGANATHA v. VITTAL SHETTY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
That the alleged offence had been committed by the respondent
on 20.01.2004 itself, was considered in C.C. No.6318/2004. When
a jurisdictional Court had gone into the very same allegation and
had rendered its judgment on 06.12.2006, another court
exercising

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.