LexRAJESH JAIN versus AJAY SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 788 : 2023 INSC 888 788 CASE DETAILS RAJESH JAIN v. AJAY SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 3126 of 2023) OCTOBER 09, 2023 [ARAVIND KUMAR AND S.V. N. BHATTI, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Since the execution of the cheque is, admittedly, not under dispute, the limited question to be considered, is (i) whether the accused can be said to have discharged his ‘evidential burden’, for the courts below to have concluded that the presumption of law supplied by s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been rebutted. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Respondent-accused tried for off ence u/s. 138 of NI Act – Trial Court acquitted respondent – Order of acquittal upheld by the High Court – Propriety: Held: There is a fundamental fl aw in the way both the Courts below have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record – Once the presumption u/s. 139 was given eff ect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability – The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the eff ect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused – The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption – In the instant case, when the courts concluded that the signature had been admitted, the Court ought to have inquired into either of the two questions (depending on the method in which accused has chosen to rebut the presumption): Has the accused led any defense evidence to prove and conclusively establish that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque – In the absence of rebuttal evidence being led the inquiry would entail: Has the accused proved the non-existence of debt/ liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the ‘particular 789 circumstances of the case’ – There was perversity in the approach of the trial Court as it framed the question ‘whether a legally valid and enforceable debt existed qua the complainant and the cheque in question (Ex. CWI/A) was issued in discharge of said liability/debt’ – When the initial framing of the question itself being erroneous, one cannot expect the outcome to be right – The onus instead of being fi xed on the accused has been fi xed on the complainant – The High Court has also questioned the want of evidence on part of the complainant in order to support his allegation of having extended loan to the accused, when it ought to have instead concerned itself with the case set up by the accused and whether he had discharged his evidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque – On consideration of the record, the case set up by the accused was riddled with contradictions – Answer of the question (i) is in negative – Consequently, the complaint fi led u/s. 138 of the NI Act is allowed and respondent-accused convicted. [Paras 55,56,57,62,63] Evidence Act, 1872 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions: Conceptual Underpinnings – discussed and elaborated. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Eff ect of Presumption and Shifting of Onus of Proof – discussed. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280; Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 705; K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 271; Kundanlal v. Custodian Evacuee Property AIR 1961 SC 1316; G.Vasu v. Syed Yaseen AIR 1987 AP 139; Bharat Barrel v. Amin Chand (1999) 3 SCC 35 : [1999] 1 SCR 704; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Exports (2009) 2 SCC 513 : [2008] 17 SCR 572; Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197 : [2019] 2 SCR 24; Rangappa vs. Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 : [2010] 6 SCR 507; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa AIR 2019 SC 1983 : [2019] 6 SCR 555 – referred to. Rules of Evidence – The Hidden Origin of Modern Law – John Henry Wigmore – referred to. RAJESH JAIN v. AJAY SINGH SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S.C.R. 790 OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3126 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2022 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMA No.148 of 2020. Appearances: Petitioner-in-person Yudhvir Dalal, Surender Singh, H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.