LexT.P. MURUGAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. versus BOJAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
T.P. MURUGAN (DEAD) THR. LRS.
v.
BOJAN
AND
POSA NANDHI REP. THR. POA HOLDER, T.P. MURUGAN
v.
BOJAN
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 950-951 of 2018)
JULY 31, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Statutory
presumption under –Operation of – Appellants after being inducted
as Directors in respondent’s company infused capital therein by
way of deposits and shares – Subsequently, they resigned from the
company and demanded re-payment of their dues – Respondent
issued a promissory note and two cheques in favour of appellants
for discharge of their liability – Cheques dishonoured – Trial court
convicted respondent u/s.138 – Conviction affirmed by District and
Sessions Court – High Court reversed the conviction – On appeal,
held: Once a cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the
holder, there is statutory presumption that it is issued in discharge
of a legally enforceable debt or liability – This presumption is a
rebuttable one, if the issuer of the cheque is able to discharge the
burden that it was issued for some other purpose like security for a
loan – In the present case, the respondent has failed to produce
any credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption –
Appellants have proved their case by over-whelming evidence to
establish that the two cheques were issued towards the discharge of
an existing liability and legally enforceable debt – Respondent
having admitted that the cheques and Pronote were signed by him,
the presumption u/s.139 would operate – Impugned order set aside
– Order of conviction passed by the trial court, restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 once a cheque has been signed and
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 355
355
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
issued in favour of the holder, there is statutory presumption
that it is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or
liability. This presumption is a rebuttable one, if the issuer of the
cheque is able to discharge the burden that it was issued for some
other purpose like security for a loan. In the present case, the
respondent has failed to produce any credible evidence to rebut
the statutory presumption. [Para 8] [360-G-H; 361-A]
1.2 The appellants have proved their case by
over-whelming evidence to establish that the two cheques were
issued towards the discharge of an existing liability and legally
enforceable debt. The respondent having admitted that the
cheques and Pronote were signed by him, the presumption under
Section 139, NI Act would operate. The respondent failed to
rebut the presumption by adducing any cogent or credible
evidence. [Para 9] [361-G-H]
Rangappa v. Shrimohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 : [2010] 6
SCR 507 ; K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr.
(2001) 8 SCC 458 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 374 ;
T. Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari (2015) 8 SCC 378 :
[2015] 5 SCR 342– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 6 SCR 507
referred to
Para 6
[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 374 referred to
Para 6
[2015] 5 SCR 342
referred to
Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 950-951 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Rev. Case Nos. 1658 & 1657 of
2008.
Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kashvi Dutta, Anup Kumar, Advs.
for the Appellants.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., B. Raghunath, Arockiaraj, Vijay Kumar,
Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The present Special Leave Petitions
have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 27.09.2013
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision
Case Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2008. That after issuance of notice, Special
Leave Petitions were heard finally.
Leave granted.
1.1 These Appeals arise out of two complaints filed under S.138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act (“the N.I. Act”) filed by the
appellants against the respondent for dishonour of two cheques
of Rs.37,00,000/- and Rs.14,00,000/- respectively.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under: -
2.1 The appellants submit that they were inducted in Maanihada Tea
Produce Company Pvt. Ltd. being run by the respondent to
infuse capital by way of deposits and shares.
2.2 On 24.11.1998, the appellants resigned as Directors of the
Company after which the respondent and his son, DW-3,
remained incharge of the Company.
ThExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.