REV. MOTHER MARYKUTTY versus RENI C. KOTTARAM & ANOTHER

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 12-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 530 
REV. MOTHER MARYKUTTY 
v. 
RENI C. KOTTARAM & ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1594 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 12, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.138, 139 and 142 
C - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption to be drawn - Standard 
of proof - Preponderance of probabilities - Complaint by 
respondent alleging that appellant had entrusted it with some 
construction work and in that regard issued a cheque in his 
favour for Rs. 25 lakhs but the cheque was dishonoured -
o Acquittal of accused-appellant by trial court - Reversed by 
High Court - Justification - Held: Elaborate consideration was 
made by the trial Court for acquitting the appellant - The 
conclusions of the trial court were drawn by adducing cogent 
and convincing reasoning -
Taking into account various 
E reasons inter alia including a) that the final payment was to 
be settled only after completion of the work and that the 
respondent did not complete the work; b) that there was no 
evidence to conclude that any measurement of the work was 
done and the accounts were settled; c) that the cheque was 
F not in the handwriting of the appellant which strengthened the 
defence version that it was not executed in favour of the 
respondent; d) that there was no reliable documentary 
evidence adduced by the respondent to hold that a sum of 
Rs. 25 lakhs was due to him warranting execution of the 
cheque and e) that there was no amount legally due to the 
G respondent to hold that the cheque was as a matter of fact 
issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent in order 
to hold that he was a holder of the cheque, the trial Court 
ultimately concluded that no offence was made out as against 
H 
530 
REV. MOTHER MARYKUTTY v. RENI C. KOTTARAM 531 
the appellant under s.138 in order to convict her under s.142 
A 
- Appellant sufficiently rebutted the initial presumption as 
regards the issuance of the cheque under ss. 138 and 139 -
The preponderance of probabilities also fully supported the 
stand of the appellant - Judgment of the High Court in having 
interfered with the order of acquittal by the trial court without 
B 
proper reasoning, thus, liable to be set aside. 
The respondent filed a complaint against the 
appellant under Section 142 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 for offence punishable under C 
Section 138 thereof. According to respondent, the 
appellant-accused had entrusted it with some 
construction work and had issued a post dated cheque 
for Rs.25 lakhs in his favour towards the outstanding 
amount due to him for the work done by him. It was 
claimed that when the cheque was presented by the 
D 
respondent with his bankers, the same was dishonoured 
due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the 
appellant. It was further claimed that though the 
respondent intimated about the dishonour of the cheque 
by a lawyer's notice served on the appellant, she came 
E 
forward with a reply taking the stand that no amount was 
due and that the respondent stealthily removed two 
cheques from the custody of the appellant of which the 
present one was forged and presented for clearance. 
The trial Court held that the appellant was able to 
rebut the presumption and that there was no 
circumstance warranting the execution of the cheque 
issued in favour of the respondent and so holding, found 
F 
the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 138 
G 
of the Act and acquitted her under Section 255(1) of 
CrPC. In appeal, the High Court while reversing the 
judgment of the trial Court found the appellant guilty of 
the offence and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.30 lakhs 
and in default to pay the fine amount directed her to 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A undergo simple imprisonment for 1 1h years. It was 
further directed that on realization of the fine amount, the 
same should be paid to the complainant-respondent 
under Section 357(1) CrPC. 
8 
In the instant appeal, the appellant raised various 
contentions, viz. 1) that she had discharged her burden 
by rebutting the initial presumption contemplated under 
Section 118 read along with Section 139 of the Act and 
having regard to the overwhelming preponderance of 
C probabilities existing in her favour, the trial Court rightly 
concluded that she was entitled for acquittal; 2) that the 
overwhelming evidence available on record as 
considered by the trial Court, though referred to b

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